In response to:

Actually, U.S. Military Still Uses Lots of Horses and Bayonets

jwalsh Wrote: Oct 24, 2012 2:27 PM
The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon was successful because of dumb @ss rules of engagement. The marines had .50 cal machine guns but the belts were not in them. The .50’s could have stopped the truck cold. The Cole attack was the same kind of thing. The sailors couldn't open fire on boats because of the rules and a proper security perimeter was not maintained. The Cole was there for very poor reasons… It did not need to be there but politics dictated that it should resupply there. A lot of good sailors and marines died because of dumb @ss rules of engagement. You have no idea about life at sea or what naval power is about. Maintaining an open navigation on the oceans is absolutely critical to maintaining free trade.

Last night during the final presidential debate of 2012, President Obama said we have "fewer horses and bayonets" during an exchange with Governor Mitt Romney. The comments were condescending, belittling and Obama implied the use of bayonets and horses was obsolete. This is not the case. Yes, Obama said "fewer" rather than "not at all," but let's take a look at how the military uses horses and bayonets today.

First, the Marines. The Marines have an entire page on their website dedicated to the bayonet, which is used in...