Translation: Iran’s superior military strategy left US supply chain warriors flat footed, and US sailors adrift and unsupplied.
intercst
12 Likes
So, they had only one supply base in the whole area. And, apparently within reach of enemy fire. Man, that’s organization…
… and I might add, you can’t blame that directly on the current Secdef. The contingency planning for that part of the world was done by previous regimes. All those admirals that came before. “Don’t worry. One will be enough. Besides, those Iranians wouldn’t dare bomb a US military base.”
10 Likes
Sure you can. The previous SecDefs would have advised against attacking Iran because the US has a greater interest in maintaining the free flow of oil and keeping the Strait open.
You saw the same nonsense from Donald Rumsfeld when our poorly protected troops were getting whacked by IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”
If it’s a “war of choice” like these expensive and embarrassing misadventures we’re funding in the Middle East, you damn well need to be holding off until our people are adequately armed and protected.
{{ Spoken by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on December 8, 2005, this phrase means leaders must use the actual resources available in a crisis rather than waiting for ideal conditions. Rumsfeld used it in Kuwait to deflect a soldier’s complaint about a lack of armored vehicles for troops heading into Iraq. }}
intercst
13 Likes
1000% disagree. The current US regime chose to go to war with Iran in the manner they chose to do it with the full knowledge Iran could attack, and almost certainly would attack, the US naval base in Bahrain.
With the full knowledge Iran had these capabilities, US leaders chose to ignore objective reality and move ahead with no contingencies, no backstop, and no Plan B.
And so here we are with the US unable to resupply its own ships. That is 0% the fault of previous administrations and 100% the fault of the current, who based the entire operation on lies and wishful thinking.
I am a student of military history. The number of obvious, avoidable blunders in this operation so far are staggering.
A timeless military maxin is don’t plan against an enemy’s intentions, instead plan against their capabilities. As discussed in several threads in the early days of the war, the US very stupidly assumed Iran would fold with some bombing. Instead Iran used their capabilities against the US and our proxies to great effect.
George Washington demonstrated very convincingly that you don’t have to defeat an enemy militarily in order to win the war. You simply have to remain on the battlefield the longest. Ho Chi Minh and his successors studied that exact playbook in detail and used it to defeat the US.
In response to the Vietnam War defeat, US planners puzzled by how a third world backwater could defeat the greatest military on Earth, came up with what became known as the Powell doctrine in order to avoid a similar futile and useless waste of lives and resources in the future.
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Do we have genuine broad international support?
So let’s go down the list.
- No vital nation security threat exists.
- There are no clear objectives.
- Risks and cost have not been analyzed
- Clearly not the case. A deal with all the key points had previously been in place.
- There is no exit strategy
- The administration is clearly flailing.
- No.
- Almost zero international support, even among our Gulf partners. Certainly none from our main Western military allies.
I report, you decide. Is this a military blunder, or is this an epic military blunder? Every possible mistake that can be made, is being made. We know this because the bosses are already blaming the troops.
25 Likes
Except that’s not what I’m talking about.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. You people seem to imply I’m “Pro-the current regime” NOT! The logistical infrustructure and modis operandi was concocted and emplaced a long time ago and I doubt some “feckless politician” bent their arms saying NO! ONLY ONE! AND PUT IT RIGHT THERE! NOW GET OUT!. You can blame the current secdef for a lot, OK everything else, but not how the existings et-up was set up.
1 Like
Oh I’m sure you’re right. That said, when it was put there the only way to attack it was with warplanes, which could be seen coming from miles away and for which there were adequate defenses. (It’s actually a repurposed British base from 1935, taken over by the US in 1971.) When the offensive capabilities of the other side changed (missiles, drones), the vulnerability was clearly not reconsidered, which has to be considered an epic fail.
The Naval headquarters was targeted with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones (more than a dozen separate facilities were hit) which arrived in waves, overwhelming any defenses that were in place.
We had “defensive missile” capabilities, but clearly they didn’t work, or at least work as well as advertised, because the base is a shambles. Communications were knocked out, supply capabilities destroyed, even barracks and other areas were obliterated.
This ought to be a HUGE object lesson for the military, but based on how slowly they move and the corruption train that flows between old generals and defense contractors, I suspect this will be simply swept under the rug. Again.
9 Likes
The certainty of civilians sitting behind a desk has led to many senseless deaths.
4 Likes
Yes, and it’s despicable, intentionally reckless, even suicidal, as if the end game is to destroy our country.
12 Likes
I would like to gratefully thank the posters who thoughtfully replied to the comment about who is at fault.
I had a response that most certainly would have got me banned from this board by the Queen of Octopuses.
Suffice it to say:
You broke it, you bought it.
7 Likes
Then you are giving the man credit because this has been less than a year and we may move on, while we can be back if Iran acts up. He is not buying into a long campaign by US standards.
Others not aligned are saying we lost. Lovely how losing a war is a goal and the anti goal for the opposition.
- Do you want a US win in Iran?
- Do you want a US loss in Iran?
- Do you care at all, but want to say this is a total loss?
- Do you not care and want a win?
- Do you not care about this war at all either way, but find it useful in other ways?
0
voters
Look we can make up for that fail at any time with some greater level of bombing or boots on the ground. Why act as if it is a fail not to commit? You do not want the commitment anyway. The man agrees with you, but he agrees on several sides of the dice with many positions at once. Does that make him smarter?
1 Like
I was watching ‘Washington Week’ last night and a reporter said that Bahrain wasn’t the only place you could resupply an aircraft carrier. There are also several useful bases within the range of Iranian missiles along the Strait of Hormuz, though all are now closed due to Israel’s surprise attack on Iran (against US wishes) on February 28th.
It seems as though US taxpayer funding of Netanyahu’s military ambitions is at the heart of the problem. And, of course, that predates Trump.
intercst
8 Likes
Your poll sucks.
Do you want a competent government? Yes!
We have a bunch of corrupt morons running things. If you ask me, “What do you want them to do?”, my answer will continue to be…NOTHING!
10 Likes
Correct and more. Incompetent always, but grains of correct.
One problem is that we are running out of bombs:
2 Likes
At some point, probably calculated for cynical political reasons, we’ll leave Iran and the gulf, with a delusional Nixonian phrase, like “Peace with honor.”
To continue is unsustainable, at great cost to our nation and the world.
8 Likes
I would delete the except clause.
2 Likes
Done! Good call.
The cost to us and the world has already accrued, and we’ll pay interest on the stupidity for generations.
4 Likes
Just saw the EIC (equicovator in chief) say he did the right thing, keeping an evil power from getting a nuclear weapon. Uh, sir? We had an agreement in place already doing that. Without cost in blood and treasure, sir.
15 Likes