We should be concerned about Obama's past, present, and plannede weakening and mishandling of the US armed forces. What the US and Israel, among other free nations, need least is an enemy in the Oval Office.

Actually, it isn't a very good quote at all. The job of the Navy is not merely to show up somewhere near a point of conflict. It is to be the extended arm of American presence and policy around the world. It is a diplomatic role, in many ways. In multiple places at the same time. The size and role of the Navy is a major difference between the two candidate because it illustrates well their different visions for American foreign policy in general.

In addition to the 'foreign presence' role, and the combat role; the US Navy plays an irreplaceable role as the 'base' for any American operations around the world. No other arm of the US military can do that; in fact, they all rely upon and utilize Navy support. Moving ships and fleets from one place to another is time consuming - time that during an urgent or acute conflict could be critical. So again, the difference between the two men on this issue says a lot about their notions of foreign policy and involvement.

As far as 'capabilities', my acquaintances in the US military say that their capabilities are already being eroded by Obama's cut-backs on military (read; combat capable) spending. What's more, veteran's benefits, especially medical care, are affected; and that has a lot of vets ticked-off. The combat troops all fear a return to the 'peacetime army' of the 80s, when American combat troops were more poorly trained and their skills got rusty, and they spent a lot of time being an army of formalities and busy work instead of continually training and staying combat sharp.

Dennis Miller tweet:

Ironically, a Marine detail with "fixed bayonets" outside our Benghazi Consulate would have probably done the trick. #3rdPresidentialDebate