I’m putting this in IMHO because we can only guess at what this person might mean.
At first glance, seeing as Afghanistan is landlocked, one might think he’s referring to using carrier airpower. Leaving aside the question of whether bombing will “stabilize the situation” at all, carrier planes would still have to overfly one of the bordering countries. Land-based planes in the region could do the same thing, so there’s no particular advantage to using naval aviation, and if you’re just talking about planes, why not just say airpower?
Perhaps he just feels – with some justification – that the US will be able to beat Afghanistan in naval power, seeing as they’re landlocked, so we should stick to our strengths?
It seems to me that he’s so ingrained in Navy-think that he can’t break free. Indicates a rigidity of thought that would probably dissuade me from voting for him.
Well, I was trying to be nonpartisan, but since I’ve already been outed above, here’s the entire range of political opinions his Wikipedia page contains:
You’ll note that the ONLY word I’ve cut from the entire “Stance on Issues” section in regards to both naval power AND Afghanistan is “he.”
So, now that you know he’s male, how does that inform your opinion?
I didn’t, but it wasn’t really relevant to my angle. The guy is one of those who will put forth the solution promotes their service, regardless of whether it would be the best course of action.
Cruise missiles and ground troops are two completely different tools; they’re not interchangeable.
You do realize there are Navy sailors, Navy Reserve sailors, Naval SPECOPs, expeditionary units, security forces, Naval aircraft, etc that have been there since the beginning of the war, right? That’s in addition to carrier air power. Having said that, I agree that leveraging the Navy is not substitutable with leveraging the Marine Corps and/or Army. The Navy is not suited for counter-insurgency operations, taking land, or occupying it.