23 February 1945

February 2012


Among the Americans serving on Iwo island, uncommon valor was a common virtue.

-Admiral Chester Nimitz

America lost 6,821 of her sons on Iwo Jima. More than 19,000 were wounded. Twenty-seven Medals of Honor and more than 200 Navy Crosses were awarded for heroism on that island.

Where is USS Michael Strank? USS Franklin Sousley? USS Harlan Bloch?

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Air Force, Army, Aviation, Books, Coast Guard, Foreign Policy, From our Archive, Hard Power, History, Marine Corps, Naval Institute, Navy, Proceedings

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

  • ‘Nimitz’ was also the last carrier we didn’t name after a U.S. politician…

  • Benjamin Walthrop

    More ship naming debate. The USN and USMC especially are going to face some real problems here shortly and this tit for tat posting on a MUCH less important issue is tiresome. If USNI wants to the be the CDR Salamander satellite field then so be it, but I don’t think that’s the idea.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    You must have missed the part about the 27 Medals of Honor, 200 Navy Crosses, and 6,821 killed.

  • Benjamin Walthrop

    Nope got it. You used it to frame your ship naming tit for tat post. Why don’t we talk about the challenges associated with taking the amphibious fleet from 33 to 30 or a USMC end strength of 150K.

    As a Marine with such a grasp of history, I’m sure you can appreciate the danger of that little budget nugget. It could probably even be tied to the action at Iwo Jima.

    It does not matter what administration is in power, or who controls Congress. These things are going to happen and happen quickly. As far as I can tell it’s the will of the American people who have tired of 11 years and 6 wars. It’s what happens after a war ends. The cuts are coming, and arguing over ship naming is missing the real issue. Could we be successful executing a forcible entry operation in the SOH with 30 amphibs. I have my doubts, but I’ll take every one of them regardless of moniker.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    You are entitled to ask to post your own thoughts here, or to go back and read the myriad posts by me and others here that deal with the issues you address. Whether they are more important fundamentally than what many, myself included, believe to be a willful disregard for Naval tradition, is also entirely your opinion. I reserve the right to have my own. This post hearkens to that Naval tradition. And asks valid questions.

  • Robert

    While the argument is framed as an assault on naval traditions, it is also a thinly veiled attempt to continue to criticize the decision making of civilian leadership within the DON. The original poster could have simply posted a story commemorating the anniversary of this important day in naval history and highlighted the valor of the brave Marines and Sailors who fought on Iwo. Instead, the anniversary and the names of a few brave warriors were used to attempt to poke the SECNAV in the eye.

    Agree with BW – far more pressing issues facing the naval Services and I regret continuing the discussion further.

    @Admin – my USNI membership dues aren’t used to compensate these “guest bloggers” correct?

  • UltimaRatioReg


    “SECNAV” is not mentioned in the post nor in either of my comments.

    Something about the shoe fitting, though.

  • Benjamin Walthrop

    Well OK. “Strong” arguments about “Unimportant” (in my opinion) events are great way to drive traffic to your site, but sooooo what? We’ve got a retired LtCol in the USMC basically attacking an active duty LT going to be OPS on a DDG for his defense of the current Navy. Traditions should not be lightly discarded, but they are also not gospel. In my opinion this is a generational issue, and the day that the influence of the cold warriors ends cannot come soon enough. Take your retirement (which the good LT may not get) and go quietly to your retirement if you can’t bring yourself to impart more important knowledge than ship naming conventions. Sheesh…

    USNI’s decision to support Sailor Bob was a good call. At least the tit for tat there is moderated by some adults.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Thank you for your opinion. May your generation do as well as custodians of the Navy as those Cold Warriors you disparage.

  • Mr. Walthrop, just curious – what does this have in any way anything to do with my homeblog?

    If you would like imply things about me, I would like to extend an offer do that over at my homeblog where there are open comments – I have my big-boy pants on … but don’t bring that here. Again, this isn’t even my post – it’s URR’s post and in unrelated to anything at my homeblog.


    Have a great Navy day!

  • @Robert – no, your membership dues do not compensate these bloggers – this is a voluntary effort to further the independent forum.

  • Robert,

    “… continue to criticize the decision making of civilian leadership within the DON. ”

    Seems in line with the “independent” part of an “independent forum.” Am I missing something here? If not here, then where?

    If there is an idea out there that you consider wrong – isn’t the best response to that more ideas, more speech? I think that is what LT Robb did on this very forum. Thinly or thickly veiled – only URR can say one or the other, or a cigar is just a cigar – but isn’t his post OK as well?

    On the more free-wheeling sub-basement of an independent forum in a representative republic, shouldn’t both sides of issues he heard? If there is any issue related to the maritime services – wouldn’t USNI be the place to voice opinions of the issue, and through discourse, discussion, and enough creative friction to fully flesh out the arguments – be the place we pursue the issues of the day?

    I think so.

    That being said – though you and Mr. Walthrop seem to want to make this about the SECNAV, I would offer that you should re-read the post. As URR said in comments, it does not mention the SECNAV. It simply asks, “Where is USS Michael Strank? USS Franklin Sousley? USS Harlan Bloch?”

    That is a very legitimate question.

  • I may have had some role in the trajectory this commentary ended up on, having gone with the ‘Nimitz’ observation in the initial comment. For me, somewhere between the second and third cup of coffee out here on central time this morning, something really resonated in terms of the ship naming issue. It may have been the juxtaposition of ‘Nimitz’ so close to ‘USS Michael Strank? USS Franklin Sousley? USS Harlan Bloch?’ And it was precisely the recent commentary on the ship naming issue on this blog that made that juxtaposition resonate.

    But for the record, I can’t imagine a more fitting thing for a blog dedicated in large part to our maritime tradition and heritage to do than on every Feb. 23 of every year submit a post regarding that flag raising and tying it to a relevant issue of the day.

    The recurrence of the ship naming issue on this blog is a symptom of something deeper. There is an enormously important question at stake that this blog has rightly continued to grapple with — one which is not only poignant and current but relevant and important. It isn’t simply about ship names. And from my perspective, URR’s mention of ship names in this post wasn’t about ship names. Rather, it was and remains about how we value and convey our own history to future generations.

    Whether we want to talk about amphibious landings in the Pacific or Montezuma or Tripoli or the battle of Fallujah, what was posted here juxtaposed the rich, distinctive and bloody heritage of our maritime services and its representation today, which goes to the heart of the question of its relevance to our active duty Sailors and Marines. U.S. Marine scout snipers posing by an SS flag may or may not be an isolated incident, though these things tend to be taken out of proportion and context. But it does put our question here in pretty stark contrast by comparison in terms of the complete absence to any reference or representation to the rich, storied and bloody heritage to which they are a part.

    Yes, this post mentions ship names. Yes, this is not the first post to mention the ship naming issue. And yes, it may be beating a dead horse given Congressional and larger Washington politics. But did the horse need to die and are we to reject the value of the horse? Either way, the death of the horse doesn’t mean you don’t have to grapple with the issue of what to do without the horse.

  • Robert

    @ CDR Sal.

    My position requires me to do quite a bit of research on naval issues and I attempt to read as many blogs on navy and MC issues as possible. I rarely post on other blogs but as a member of USNI off and on since the mid-90s, I feel I have the right to use this forum to address certain issues.

    There is a small group of bloggers with naval connections, you included, who have your own sites and frequently use those sites to advance a political agenda – which is their prerogative. My issue is the UNSI admin allows only a limited number of people to serve as “guest bloggers” and some of those “Chosen Few” are using this forum, with direct links to others, to undermine political appointees from the opposite political party.

    I think the following are still valid for USNI (I don’t recall voting for modification of the charter depending on what party is in office):

    INDEPENDENT – A non-profit member association, with no government support, that does not lobby for special interests;
    NON-PARTISAN – An independent, professional military association with a mission, goals and objectives that transcend political affiliations; and shall encourage
    IDEAS – Through its respected journals Proceedings and Naval History, its conferences, its books and its online content, in support of those who serve.

    Hopefully, USNI will take note of some of the comments that have appeared recently about JO’s viewing USNI as irrelevant and controlled by a group of retired officers. I’ve watched as a few of the guest bloggers, well, one in particular, have attempted to act as a “virtual police force” and pounce on anyone with a contrarian view – not sure how that supports principle number three. I ran a red teaming/alternative analysis team for the IC so I tend to take a contrarian view on many issues just to break up the group think.

    Having USNI print and digital media dominated by the retired and special interest crowd will only continue to drive away new members – many of those are the “up and comers” that would benefit the most from actively participating in the USNI community.

    My recommendation is to turn this blog over to some new minds offering a fresh perspective on naval issues of the day. I’m sure there would be a host of junior/midgrade officers and enlisted who would jump at the chance – if they would feel more comfortable using an assumed identity, so be it – it’s the message not the messenger that matters. Or run this blog like SWJ in its hay day –eliminate the professional bloggers, anyone desiring to start a dialog on a topic could send it to the site moderator first. Additionally, some of the submissions to Proceedings not quite up to par for print could also be posted in a web-only version on here – this may help reduce the several month backlog as well.

  • Robert,

    I believe that you may be seeing what you want to be there, but not what is there. Speaking only for myself, until very recently at my home blog I have for years posted positive things about the SECNAV (just go over there and do a search for SECNAV if you want, lots of pro-SECNAV things there) and voiced agreement with some of his other decisions. Was that political? No. Likewise, if I take a position contrary to the SECNAV’s position on a different blog than this one BTW – does that make it political? Again, no. Not everything is political in life. You cannot have it both ways. If you allow only agreement and disallow disagreement, then you do not have and independent forum, you actually have a partisan forum; one partisan to whatever political power happens to occupy the seat at the time. That is an attitude more in line with a South American dictatorship than our republic.

    As for USNIBlog – I started posting here while still on active duty. I have only been retired for a little over two years and am not a professional blogger; I only do this stuff while eating or on hold. As a matter of fact, no one here is a “professional blogger.” Look at the blogroll as well, there is a good diversity there and if you look at the awards this blog has received over the years, I think that speaks for itself.

    I would recommend a few things if you will indulge me; you should consider acting in a manner that you ask of others. If you put your thoughts out there and someone disagrees with them, welcome that difference. Re-engage on the topic to further define, defend and bolster your point of view. Someone who counters your counter isn’t trying to “police” you – he is just responding (styles may vary).

    People respond in different ways – but that is the nature of the marketplace of ideas. Second recommendation, if you feel that there is an absence of a certain point of view in the online world, then take advantage of the minimal-to-no barriers to entry. If you can’t get others to publish your thoughts, in 5-minutes you can start your own blog. If your ideas are good, interesting, and garner enough readers to have them come back every day in the thousands – then the market will take you places you want your ideas to go. Do not curse the darkness, light a candle. Heck – if you have something that needs to be said, write it up. I’ll put it on my homeblog. I only put up about one guest post a month, but if it is good, up it goes. Last guest post I put up on my homeblog was by a Midshipman (should be young enough for you) whose view was about 180deg out from mine …. and he got hundreds of comments and tens of thousands of readers of his post alone.

    Join the discussion, don’t try to silence others.

  • Claude Berube


    As a long-time member of USNI, a member of the editorial board (though I do not speak for it), and occasionally a guest blogger here, I agree with you that new voices should be a welcomed part of the USNI discourse. I disagree with your assessment that it hasn’t been done. In Proceedings there have been a lot of JOs articles published the past year and I’ve seen even mids posting on this blog. This blog also has a number of thoughtful and well-informed posts by a YN1 whom I consider one of the best-read individuals in today’s Navy.

    Contrarian views are a necessary part of this forum but I don’t think that means someone has to refrain from disagreeing with the initial post. Dialogue is a two-way street, hence you had not only the Federalist but the Anti-Federalist Papers. Maybe we could look at the debate over ship naming between the two sides this week as part of that continuing debate.

    Your final suggestion is a a great one and I hope USNI does that. Perhaps with the recent hiring of an online editor it will happen.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    You speak above of “independent”, and “non-partisan” and “ideas”.

    The post above highlights the titanic struggle in the epic fight for Iwo Jima. It is a part of the glorious histories of both the Marine Corps and the Navy. If you don’t believe that worthy of commemorating on 23 February, perhaps you can tell USNI what is.

    If you do think such an event is worthy of note, perhaps, then, you can answer the question I pose in the post. It is a very legitimate one; it was a fair query when names like “Stennis” and “Vinson” were assigned to hulls, it most certainly is now that we have a USS Murtha, a USS Cesar Chavez, and USS Gabrielle Giffords.

    Lastly, if you have such an abiding interest in the exchange of ideas, then please approach Admin and let her know you would like to post here as well.

    Otherwise, when you speak of “independent” and “non-partisan” and “ideas”, they are, as Shakespeare observed, simply “words, words, words.”

  • Byron

    Concur with Sal…and Robert, I’ve known Sal for years and consider him a friend…but I disagree with him from time to time. Doesn’t affect our relationship one bit, just proves that humans are individuals and we all think differently. Those that say otherwise are either incredibly arrogant or slaves, neither of which are optimal examples of free speech. Don’t believe me? Go back to our nations earliest begginings, where the colonial Congress was filled with acrimony. We’re just an argumentive lot by nature.

    No one is saying not to speak your mind..BUT…the nature of the internet is much like an auditorium full of opinionated people…and all have the right to approach the podium, say their mind and let the next one speak. I’ve moderated an online forum for 12 years. Only rule I had was to be polite and keep the language clean.

    The point is, it’s a marketplace of ideas. Some buy, some don’t. It’s up to the seller to sell his idea.

  • Robert

    To URR:

    “The post above highlights the titanic struggle in the epic fight for Iwo Jima. It is a part of the glorious histories of both the Marine Corps and the Navy. If you don’t believe that worthy of commemorating on 23 February, perhaps you can tell USNI what is.”

    Ok, perhaps I missed something – let me go back and review the 30 word commemoration. There is no mention of the epic fight on Iwo, I only read the date, stats, quote, and the names being used to advance the debate on ship naming. It could have been done better and without attempting to connect their valor to the ongoing partisan squabbling.

    Perhaps you should read my original comment before going in the attack devil dog.

    “The original poster could have simply posted a story commemorating the anniversary of this important day in naval history and highlighted the valor of the brave Marines and Sailors who fought on Iwo.”

    I read your post on COL Dabney now that was a fitting tribute – just the facts about a great Marine. Well done on that one.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Perhaps you missed this:


    The 23rd of February is the commemoration of the 28th Marines raising the flag over Suribachi. The post above highlights the cost, and the bravery.

    If you consider the question of naming US Navy warships after the three flag-raisers killed on the island of Iwo to be “partisan squabbling”, I fear you are the one with the agenda.

  • Robert

    And who says the navy can’t do swarming tactics!!!

    Ok- not to belabor the point. Partisanship: you can’t host a website(with a link provided to that site) and bash civilian leadership, then appear on another blog, using the same identity, and offer a toned down message and think its ok. [edited by admin] I am not trying to restrict anyone from sharing information but as the few elite bloggers selected by USNI, you are representing the organization – despite any disclaimers to the contrary.

    As far as exchanging ideas, I would have been fired long ago if I attempted to conduct a game or analytic event, and as a facilitator of the event, I tried to counter everyone who stated an opinion I didn’t agree with. Asking questions or attempting to draw out more information are valid tools of facilitation but telling people they are wrong or not well-read only inhibit the discourse.

    Perhaps I am wrong but I see the featured posters as part of the blog staff and not just a casual poster wanting to offer an opinion or two. The exchange of information between posters is certainly free-flow – sometimes useful and sometime not – but when the “staff” gets involved to provide anything beyond sharing their personal opinion they are crossing a boundary.

  • Diogenes of NJ

    URR and Cdr Salamander stand in the light of Diogenes lamp as having a considerable amount of sea time.

    The fact that they may be passionate about the current state of affairs in the sea services makes this blog a place to which Diogenes continues to return.

    Those who have never been far out to sea, have never had a clear view of the heavens.

    Those who have, write about it here and else where.

    – Kyon

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Partisanship: you can’t host a website(with a link provided to that site) and bash civilian leadership, then appear on another blog, using the same identity, and offer a toned down message and think its ok.”

    Actually, you can. That is the beauty of free speech. Besides, the “message” here is non-partisan, and a legitimate question.

  • Byron

    Robert, the Institute itself is “independent”, “Non-partisan”. It provides forum for the free exchange of ideas by it’s members. It does not mean that once you put up your article that you won’t have to defend it; of course you will have to defend it, and more to the point, in a much quicker fashion that you would if this article had been in the dead tree version. Again, welcome to the wonderful world of internet blogging, where the ideas are mostly sharp (I’ve seen more than a few over the years that were better left unsaid)and the elbows (commenters whose viewpoint differs from yours).

    The point, Robert, is that you don’t expect that your article will be contested, or that the commenters will take a view contrary to those of their notional betters in Congress and DoD. That is where you’re really, REALLY wrong. Last but not least, you say you want to turn this over to the young officers and mids…Robert, spend a bit of time reading over the list of contributors. You’ll see a list of current mids and just graduated ensigns. There’s even a very sharp YN2 who has a mind like a laser sight.

    Open your eyes…and your ears. The easiest way to test your beliefs is to listen to those who oppose you. Perhaps you may find a fallacy in their logic. You’ll only know if you engage and discuss.

  • Sperrwaffe

    Boy, oh boy, this is currently quite emotional ehh? Why so? Let’s all calm down, have a coffee better make that a large espresso and then come back to the table.

    You are currently not in a discourse, sorry to say that. And by that you are steering right into that shallow mined waters ahead flank.

    Nathan made a very good point and I strongly support it. You should re-read his post. “Rather, it was and remains about how we value and convey our own history to future generations.” I think this is the topic. The discussion about naming ships goes along with CDR Sal’s post concerning heritage. And URR’s post contributes to the overall topic. This discussion is not only relevant for your armed forces but also for other countries.

    And one more word on the controversial issue about this Blog and the USNI. I don’t get it. But maybe I am not to familiar with all problems of your community. Just a guest from Germany…

    I welcome this blog as a wonderful additon to my knowledge and perspective. And if it is a nice discourse the better. But I don’t see the political issue of “retired fossils” trying to influence the “junior rascals”. Or that someone is pursuing his political cours or even worse is on a crusade.

    I really don’t think so. I would always support it to have such “retired fossils” contributing with their knowledge and experience. We can only learn from each other. I have always learned from a nice dicourse. And I have certainly learned a lot from all of the contributing authors and replies.

  • Total

    There are 714 holders of the Medal of Honor from the Navy. Where are their ships? 297 Marine holders of the MOH. Where are their ships?

    We should never name a ship anything else until those 1011 heroes’ names have graced the hull of a US warship. Anything else is a disgrace to their names.

  • Total

    Wow. Dead silence. Perhaps people are realizing that no matter what we do, some particularly valiant folks are NOT going to have a ship named for them. Given that, the issue becomes how we try to go about honoring as many as we can, while still recognizing that there may be other reasons to name a ship, and that simply invoking ‘Ohmigod, this [incredibly heroic person] still doesn’t have a ship named after them! How can you name a ship [anything but the name of a medal winner]’

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Saw your comment just before driving to Boston.

    But, spot-on. Those 1,011 heroes, plus the names Enterprise, Saratoga, Wasp, Hornet, Constellation, Ranger, Nautilus, Yorktown, America, Independence, and Lexington should preclude either side of the aisle from fishing in the political pond for ships’ names in perpetuity.

  • Benjamin Walthrop

    Before the comments on this post, I really did not think the military-civilian divide had become quite as bad as the obviously anecdotal evidence that this post provides. It is much worse than I imagined if these comments are to be believed.

    Time to open up the bases and clubs again and re-connect with the rest of American society. It seems that the cold warriors had that sort of balance about right.

  • Total

    Interesting. Is there a reason quite a few comments from last night were deleted?

  • Diogenes of NJ

    Total –

    Perhaps it is a Zampolit tactic to encourage frequent visits to the blog.

    To paraphrase what they say in Chicago – “Read early and read often”.

    – Kyon

  • Total

    @ Diogenes of NJ

    It’s working.

  • Total

    Just to repeat what I said in some of the deleted comments: naming a ship after *every* single deserving person is simply impossible. Given that, not naming a ship for some particular hero is NOT a disgrace, but a simple inevitability. There’s a discussion to be had over how to name ships, but the hysterical issue-mongering that surrounds it (“This incredible hero has not had a ship named after him! How dare we name a ship after XYZ?”) is silly. Moreover, it is partisan, as the complainers now show no sign of having complained about similar namings during the Bush administration.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “the complainers now show no sign of having complained about similar namings during the Bush administration.”

    This blog didn’t exist until December 2008. And there have been many comments by me and others as to the appropriateness of ship naming that occurred in other administrations.

    You just haven’t expended the effort to find them. Nor are you so inclined.

    Partisan, indeed.

  • Reformer

    A distinguished naval officer throws her support behind the Giffords naming:

    “But after hearing the same old criticism about the naming, I am now on board to fully support naming the next LCS for Giffords.”


  • Total

    This blog didn’t exist until December 2008. And there have been many comments by me and others as to the appropriateness of ship naming that occurred in other administrations

    It did exist when the naming of the USS Gerald Ford came up and the best you could manage was a semi-defense of Ford pardoning Nixon.


    You just haven’t expended the effort to find them. Nor are you so inclined.

    I’ve looked and haven’t found anything. But you would be the author of such criticisms and should have no problem pointing us to them, correct? So a link or two would be excellent.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Nope. Do your own homework.

  • Total,
    I find it unfortunate that this is diving in to politics. The issue with naming ships, from USNI authors at least, has a very long history dating back well over a decade and at least three administrations. Though I am sure there are earlier articles, the furthest back I can remember is Norman Polmar’s “The Name Game” from the JUN 1998 edition of Proceedings (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1998-08/comment-and-discussion) – and he has covered the topic on a regular basis since (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-05/comment-and-discussion).

    Any discussion on this issue by anyone at USNI’s sub-basement – USNIBlog – or in other places is well within the bounds of appropriate discussion. Of course, you can disagree – but for me, if URR is following in the steps of Norman Polmar, he is probably doing something good and worthwhile.

    If you find the topic uncomfortable due to your political leanings, then that is unfortunate as it is preventing you from actively discussing the issue at a higher level, but this issue has been a Navy problem for a very long time.

    Not everything is about election year politics – there are larger issues at play.

  • Total

    Nope. Do your own homework.

    Not homework, son. Of all things, you’re not a teacher.

    In fact, I’ll take your word for it, you being a gentleman and a Marine and all: tell me that, pre-2009, you publicly criticized the naming of the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Gerald Ford and other ships with non-heroic names because that meant that Harlan Bloch and others were being left out, and I’ll accept it.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Yep. I did. Wanted to see Saratoga, Lexington, Ranger, Constellation. I MIGHT, MIGHT be amenable to a USS Ronald Reagan, if, some time after his death, he was considered worthy. While he was living? No. Stennis? No. Vinson? No. Not a CVN, at any rate. Truman? No. GHW Bush? No. Jimmy Carter? Gerald Ford? John Warner? No. Certainly not Murtha, or Chavez, or Giffords, which is not as egregious as those last two.

    The Roosevelts? Yes. Teddy obviously built the modern Navy. FDR was a warlord in the greatest conflict in history, whether you agree with his politics or not. He is deserving as well.

    Harlan Bloch, Michael Strank, Franklin Sousley? Yes. And many others.

    Tradition. It is the fabric that ties a military organization to its past and to its future.

    As for being a teacher? I would not presume to teach anything to someone who knows everything.

  • Total


    So who do you leave out? We’ve got 1011 MOH (naval or marine). Who doesn’t get a ship?

  • Total

    As for being a teacher? I would not presume to teach anything to someone who knows everything.

    I certainly know more than you, but that’s a really low bar to cross.

  • Total,
    I think the slap fight you’re having with URR is entertaining and all …. but did you get a chance to read my comment that addresses the substance of your complaint?

  • Total

    I think the slap fight you’re having with URR is entertaining and all …. but did you get a chance to read my comment that addresses the substance of your complaint?

    “slap fight”? Cute. Is that what you and the other girls do on the playground?

    As to your response, it suffers from the same issues as URR’s did: these complaints about the names are both 1) illogical (who are *you* going to leave out of the 1011 Naval and Marine MOHs?) and 2) partisan (they tend to come up most during Democratic administrations–both of the Polmar comments you cite came–shock, horror–during exactly such an administration. Magically, when the issue is the USS Ronald Reagan, those horrified (horrified!) by the USS Giffords suddenly go silent.

    So I’ll ask you the same question I asked URR: 1011 navy sailors and marines won MOHs. Which of them are you going to leave out of naming a ship?

  • Well, it seems we have turned in to butter on this topic. Have a great Navy day!

  • Total

    Well, it seems we have turned in to butter on this topic. Have a great Navy day!

    You still haven’t answered my question: which of the 1011 MOH winners are you going to leave off the side of a ship?