> Without a carrier group, an overseas nation has no credible opportunity to bombard a far away theater, engage in air sorties, land troops, or any other expeditionary action. ... Defense of carriers is a problem that must be solved, or the U.S. would have to accept a military stalemate for naval warfare.

That might be lacking in vision. The aircraft carrier is the current means, but nations have engaged in overseas expeditionary actions before and without aircraft carriers. Just because the current solution might no longer be available doesn't mean there is no solution.

Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. And the most likely solution there is missiles, which have become exceptionally accurate and which many think will dominate future battlefields.

Finally, whether or not we feel the carriers are essential, if they are ineffective on the battlefield then another solution will need to be found. Necessity is the mother of invention.