So How Long Can Bush Keep Carriers and Strike Forces Off Iran's Shore?

[Blackhatjack]

We keep ships and troops moving all over the world at any given time. However, it becomes a matter of logistics when you attempt to keep a large contingent in a geographical region for an extended period of time. I lost count, but the build up of carriers, their strike forces, and their troops, have to be close to approaching their logistical limits without resupply or substitutes.

It has been reported that the carrier Nimitz and its strike group are steaming toward Iran with the intention of substituting for the carrier Eisenhower and its strike group.

Even so, how long can we maintain this strategy, especially in light of the failure of this policy to change Iran's position on anything of significance?

[Marrah_G]

1. I don't think that is much of a problem

I believe they can resupply at sea and get fuel at any number of places.

[Blackhatjack]

2. The War Games We Conducted Last Week Must Have Been A Welcome Diversion For The Troops

but very dangerous for the rest of the world if we had 'accidentally' attacked a target inside of Iran and they had retaliated. Could have led to a US attack with massive firepower, starting yet another war.

[Selatius]

3. We can keep 2 there indefinitely if we continuously rotate aircraft carriers.

According to this, Nimitz, Roosevelt, and Truman are "surge ready" and would deploy if needed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

[C_U_L8R]

4. until the money ruins out

(that's hint congress)