Vessel is leaving its station and headed home. Will there be a replacement group, what are the ramifications and individual opinions please. Frankly, from what I know and understand I see this move as downsizing especially if nobody is heading ease into the Med to replace what is going west. Not saying we are giving up but I'm beginning to wonder. We made a really big show about moving everybody into position back in October and now we are cutting back. I know other countries are sending some help but...

We will still have a carrier strike group and an amphibious ready group in the region, not to mention other US warships operating independently, plus are leading the allied naval coalition countering the Houthis.

TRACKER
ARG
COALITION

Not saying you are wrong, but the bulk of this effort is going to be on us. And yes I know we have assault troops on one of those vessels, so are we going to use them or what (God I hope not). Sorry, but I don't really see any plan for this. I'm sure there is a plan at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave but that guy doesn't know if he is awake today yet. I have no faith in what we are doing there. Not saying we shouldn't be there. we should but why put in what we did, build up our strength, pull out what we did and there by weaken our strength and not replace. The US will shoulder the burden of all of this and frankly I don't like the position we are in right now.

Sorry; Im *****ing.

Putting a carrier strike group in an area of conflict is a pretty big, resource intensive, deal. Having 2 CSGs in the same area is an even bigger deal. The question is, why 2 when 1 will do. We have a naval fleet that is already stretched thin, and putting 2 CSGs in one area probably means that there is another area without a CSG that could use it, or another CSG that should be in port is getting extended, or a ship that needs maintenance is getting that maintenance delayed.

I don't know why we decided to put 2 CSGs there, but I suspect it was as a deterrent more than anything else. I think the powers at be have come to the conclusion that deterrence of 2 CSGs is overkill, and they don't need to put another one there. As someone else said, having an amphibious readiness group in the region as well is a pretty big deterrent as is.

The two CSGs were intended to deter Iran and Hezbullah from opening new fronts against Israel while it fights Hamas.

Having succeeded in keeping other major actors from intervening, the second CSG has been withdrawn and replaced with an ARG which will serve to maintain the same clear message of US intent. We also have significant USAF assets in next-door Europe which can quickly respond if needed.

Meanwhile, we are also leading a 20-nation coalition protecting shipping in the Red Sea.

monarch said:

---

Not saying you are wrong, but the bulk of this effort is going to be on us. And yes I know we have assault troops on one of those vessels, so are we going to use them or what (God I hope not). Sorry, but I don't really see any plan for this. I'm sure there is a plan at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave but that guy doesn't know if he is awake today yet. I have no faith in what we are doing there. Not saying we shouldn't be there. we should but why put in what we did, build up our strength, pull out what we did and there by weaken our strength and not replace. The US will shoulder the burden of all of this and frankly I don't like the position we are in right now.

Sorry; Im *****ing.

---

What burden do you think the US is sholdering with the CSG's being there? I think you have a misunderstanding of what their job was.