Personally, I feel the Iranian vessel that keeps suspiciously drifting around Yemen as the attacks are being made should be turned into a flaming wreck immediately. After that we can start thinking about other responses.
Concur with Dave. The seizures might be part of a larger CONOPS effort, but reducing significantly their oil revenues not only demonstrates resolve but also breadth of international capabilities. It also can display forbearance in minimal loss of civilian casualties. A no trainer…which is why “foggy bottom” will argue endlessly against it.
Why? Because the Mullahs actually ARE willing to die.
We keep thinking the political leadership in Iran are just like any politician, and don't actually believe that nonsense.
They DO believe it. Do they SEEK their own personal deaths? No. But they will NEVER be swayed by personal threats.
The only thing that will deter them is if they feel the EMPIRE they think they are building is at risk of being dismantled, stone by stone, such that they will go down in history as failures.
Being remembers as Martyr's while they get their rocks off in Haji-heaven with a bunch of horny angels is EXACTLY how they see their lives playing out.
Watching it all go up in flames and being remembered as failures is a deterrent.
"Why? Because the Mullahs actually ARE willing to die."
Which is why our strategy of "decapitating" their organizations by drone was a predictable failure. Not to mention that it sets a precedent ; THEY have drones now. Another (mis)quote---"Uneasy is [should be] the head that wears the crown".
But again, this is western failure to think like they do.
Their response to our actions will be one in anger AND fear.
What do they fear more?
1) Dying?
or
2) Being perceived as phonies and cowards by their people.
I would argue that at this point, their decades of mental embrace of this stuff leaves them incapable of showing fear or backing down in the face of threats. They'll move around and try to avoid getting hit, but at the end of the day, they won't alter their policies or external behaviors just to reduce the risk to themselves.
You know what all martyrs have in common? They're all dead and unable to affect events. Peel the onion and sooner or later you get to a layer without smut.
We would have to cut deep and with a plan. After forty+ years of giving them the hairy eyeball, we ought to know which ones of them are reasonable, which ones are bribable, which ones have kompromat issues. Don't tell me they're all clean. I won't listen to you. Kill their leadership down to the level where a "friendly" is in line to take over, or a suite of them.
Easier said than done perhaps. Says no enemy of the USA whatever. They just figure out how to do it. Like we did in the fifties and sixties while we still had the stones/cultural confidence.
As we've seen in Gaza, this is much harder to do in practice than to say.
We would have to kill a LOT of people. all of whom would be hiding amongst civilians in a nation with respectable air defense capabilities.
Look how hard it has been for Israel in Gaza. And they are next-door, own all the airspace, and overmatch FAR more than we would against Iran.
Now tell me the American people would support and sustain such a campaign with far more civilian deaths and ZERO on-the-scene BDA to prove we were hitting our targets, not to mention the inevitable deaths amongst air-crew, and the public torture and execution of captured aircrew.
There is no easy 'win' from taking the war into Iran proper, and it gives the regime the ability to rally the population.
Especially when there are SO MANY easier Iranian proxy and deployed military asset targets that can be struck outside Iran
Indeed. But we have more resources, and above all, we have had TIME. Nov.4, 1979 was 44 years 2 months and 3 weeks ago. Every day since then it should have been the single job of at least one man, if not a team, at the Pentagon, to consider, a, How can we bowb Iran today, and b, How do we end them when the American people finally elect a President with guts? This should have been a generational project. Americans should have long memories. Everybody we admire does. 40 plus years, that's two generations, that's two government retirements, we should have a plan by now. A good plan. How much work and time did we put into blipping Mossadegh? How many thousand times harder can this crew be?
And yeah, we have to get out of the pattern of being afraid to get red-handed. I guess that's the kicker. I'm not apt to casually say something like, we should go nuclear early (I mean hard targets like Fordow rather than schwacking population centers) but all those ramifications should be considered and perhaps considered afresh by a Team B approach rejecting current possibly ossified assumptions.
But your whole assumption of a drama with captured aircrews, we need to be well beyond that. Massive biblical retaliation for even making such a threat.
Of course this will upend the entire world order. Which we should also be prepared to manage instead of simply having happen.
I disagree. This action should be Wholly and 100% attributable to the US Navy.
We should roll the USS Carney up in broad daylight, announce that they have 60 seconds to abandon ship, and then proceed to use that 5" gun in anger for the first time in a long time, until the tub sinks
I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling deep in my gut that the Iranians are trying to provoke an attack that would justify turning on their sleeper cells for attacks on the electrical / internet grids
Officials are saying they mistook it for a USA drone expected back at that same time as the attack. I know that US military aircraft have friend or foe signals other aircraft can "See" so there are no friendly fire incidents. This seems to me to be totally CYA. What say you? I'm certain drones have this too. We are not talking small drones
well, the Iranian's and proxies are not stupid. What are the odds they have been watching to see if our troops developed patterns of behavior they could take advantage of.
If the base DID expect a drone to return at that time, because local commanders got lazy and allowed their troops to develop predictable routines, then it would have been a no-brainer for the Iranian proxies to slip a drone weapon in to arrive at just before our drone.
and lazy troops might not have bothered to check IFF if they expected an arrival.
This type of deception has been used for military purposes for as long as humans have been banding together to throw rocks at each other.
Far from impossible, i'd imagine this is the most likely situation. These are not exquisite systems, they're newish, the troops employing them are new to them etc etc etc. Perfect storm of conditions.
Not to mention its the sort of thing our enemies can intentionally influence (simulate the condition often enough we get numb to it) relatively cheaply
Iran has the luxury of several crucial coincidences:
- we are no longer credible as a nation
- like Rome, our legions have stayed too long on the frontier and no longer have the resources or the political willpower to execute their missions
- what is their mission?
- a hamstrung and self inflicting department of “defense”
- close lines of communication and ability to fill in the vacuum
- a hubric imperial DC political system
WTF is the national guard filling out legionnaire ranks? We have 450k regular US Army troops. Certainly a brigade combat team can be pieced together out of that to do our imperial duties instead of using a state guard? We are not a serious nation.
I suggest that entire NG divisions are being deployed overseas precisely so they CANNOT be on our borders. Standby for the Texas NG to be called up for overseas deployment. If I was Governor Abbott, I ‘d simply say “No.”
For whatever reason, the NG has been turned into the administration's (not just Brandon's) forward deployed troops. I know ANG folks that have been deployed overseas more times and longer than regular Army or Air Force troops.
Well, our current "emperor" is a former Senator who doesn't even rise to the level of Caligula's horse ... being that Caligula sought to appoint a WHOLE horse to the Roman Senate, not just the rear half.
"Is this what we have a National Guard for?"...it is now. NG troops were reintegrated at unprecedented levels for Iraq. Oh, the irony of "watching" one border while neglecting your own.
I think it indicates we are engaging in foreign adventures for which Congress has not voted and the of which the populace does not approve.
My thoughts have evolved a great deal the past decade+, but I think we should have a Navy (with perhaps the air force an extension of it for power protection), Missiles and Defense, JSOC for JSOC S$%t, and no standing army nor deployed troops without Congress voting to raise it specifically for geographic purpose and stated goals. A small reserve force to maintain training structures and doctrine but not to be deployed (although in the event of Congress declaring war many would of course be activated).
Well, I'd rather have Guard units deployed on imperial duties than standing behind fences protecting politicians against phantom menaces in our capitol.
Don't we have hackers? Wreck the mullahs' cyber assets, and supercharge the capabilities of online Iranian dissidents. Keep the mullahs too busy at home to bother reaching past their borders. Stoke unrest, then stoke it some more.
no doubt, I'm just saying that those organizations have a culture which restricts and de-emphasizes 'offensive' cyber, because we have not had a declared war in 73 years and POYUS has ZERO inclination to strike at the Iranians.
Act of war vs declared war are 2 different legal animals.
Id say once the dissidents gain some traction...then thats the time to eliminate their govt down to about GS-4 level, along with their military and arms production capability. Oh and nuclear sites and oil export terminals too. Then let the Iranians decide what their next govt will look like and how itll act. We suggest they change their path and point out we could return if needed...
Eliminating the supplier and funder of most of the region's problem children would not only largely curtail their operations, but also show China that we arent unwilling to do what needs to be done in support of friends and/or in a region that needs our stabilizing attention.
This is harder than it sounds without resorting to nuclear weapons.
Iran's Netanz and Fordow facilities, especially Natanz, are DEEP buried.
I got to sit in on some briefings back in '09 that made clear that successfully destroying that facility with anything other than nuclear weapons would be a low probability success mission for us.
The Iranians learned UGF construction from the NorK's, who learned it from the Russians and then applied there own special blend of crazy and paranoia.
Hitting Iranian assets OUTSIDE Iran is very feasible, but I honestly don't think we want the level or scale involved in taking it to their entire government.
Besides, that would be the one thing that would unite the Iranian people behind the government.
Hit everything they have outside their borders and embargo them, and the people will suffer the sanctions and blame the government.
Most people nowadays no longer want to take the time to understand nuance. Everybody is caught up in "My side is right therefore EVERYTHING that ANYBODY on the OTHER SIDE says MUST BE WRONG"
I've lost good friends over my unapologetic support of Ukraine. If I could find a conservative billionaire 'sugar-daddy' to support my family, I would go to Ukraine myself.
And I utterly reject the idea that a nation as great as ours has to choose between securing our border and supporting a nation like Ukraine or Taiwan against the predations of autocratic bullies like Russia or China.
We are capable of both. The border is not a resource issue, it is a political willpower issue and the current admin and most dems want open borders for more govt addicted dem voters. (and establishment Repubs want open borders for cheap labor)
All issues I hope to address soon on my own new substack :)
Well Id be the last one to suggest going nuclear... Thats a hard pass. I have no knowledge about the actual sites or their hardening... But maybe at the least the access points could be destroyed(?) making them at least inaccessible for a while (??)
And youre right, there's a fine line between hitting a govt and leaving a vacuum that is filled with somthing better, and uniting a people and it only becoming worse. Thats pretty hard to predict. I certainly dont have any ideas that a western democracy will appear and flourish. But at the same time, the Iranian leaders and their anti-western ideology IS the problem. And I'm not convinced that anything we do outside their borders will have any serious effect on their course. The only exception being bankrupting them by ending their oil exports completely. I think thatd have to be done through more serious means than sanctions- either a blockade (which wouldnt likely get much support from the rest of the wirld) or outright destroying all the shipping facilities. Even if we did that, the amount of exported terrorist support would likely increase til it becomes unsustainable, and the general population would suffer mightily and unnecessasarilly.
Im trying to avoid sounding like a crazy war hawk here...Id really rather our men n women stay outta harms way. But... Im not sure that anything less than removing the Iranian leadership and/or their military production capabilities is going to change anything in the region...
1) majority of Iranian arms to proxies move by ship. even without other international support, we could end most of that unilaterally if we were committed. Would they send by other means? sure. but the net would be a reduction in their arming of proxies
2) add interdiction of any air traffic through airspace we can impact. allow civilian airliners, which means some arms smuggling, and they'll send a bunch through airspace we can't interdict, but again, it would produce a net reduction in arming of proxies
3) The idea in your first paragraph is something I am not allowed to speak to in substance due to what I've been exposed to, but I'll say your on the right path.
4) Then get serious about hitting the proxies. No safe landing zones in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or any other shithole we can bomb with relative impunity.
"...we could end most of that unilaterally if we were committed. "
And sadly, thats our stumbling block. My ideas, your ideas...and so many others could get results if only leadership had the will to do somthing meaningful. So while I applaud the strikes on the Houthis, on the other hand, we're treating a symptom, not the problem.
A good point about air traffic and interdiction. I wonder truly how good our intel is on weapons traffic and storage inside Iran. Because if we could locate warehouses that supply the air shipments... Im going to assume we probably have that info, or could get it if we were so inclined. While yes, hitting the destination sites works- Im also nervously watching our weapons stock levels and wondering how long we can hit proxies before we reach a crisis magazine level, and thinking we should focus upstream.
Oh and interesting note about nuclear sites. I never was privy to any high level info or anything like that beyond what saturdays mess deck desert was, or maybe who our COs new model gf of the week was! But very much figured that an undestroyed site is still useless if its inaccessible. Where there's a will...but ill leave that one alone-'Nuff said!
(point of pride, if you read the entire article, you'll note that in the update at the end, the author credits a 'reader' with pointing out how the munition actually works. That 'reader' would be yours truly, which is why I saved this article)
2nd question. Since Iran and its proxies have committed large numbers of acts of war against us, how do we avoid total war with Iran? How do you respond in such a way to put a chill on Irans calculations?
OR. Is war with Iran inevitable? Are we even capable of significant military ops against Iran?
War with Iran is not inevitable. That suggests it has not started yet.
We ARE AT WAR with Iran. Why? Because Iran is at war with us, whether we chose to acknowledge it or not.
War does not have to be 'total war' with invasions and mass carpet bombing.
The Iranians, and most of our adversaries around the world, now wholeheartedly embrace the Russian concept of 'hybrid-warfare' that seas 'war' as a long-standing, near permanent state of relations in which various mechanisms are used based on the prevailing conditions.
One day it's cyber, another terror, another proxy attacks, etc etc etc.
The sooner we accept and acknowledge this, and begin responding in kind, the sooner Iran will learn it's measures are no longer producing the outcomes they seek.
Rule #1 of all Human (and for that matter, all animal) behavior.
You get more of the behavior you reward and less of the behavior you punish.
Ie.. if the costs are high enough, the behavior will decline. If they see the costs as bearable for the benefits they seek, they will continue the behavior.
"War does not have to be 'total war' with invasions and mass carpet bombing."
I wish more people would embrace this concept. "OMG we're at war. Better send 100,000 ground pounders" is not a valid position for the 21st century. There is nothing we want to take or defend in Iran. Reduce the threat; there is no need more ground action.
There was a concept that was quite fashionable among the chattering classes and strategerists a couple of years ago; "asymmetric warfare". Like other fashionable concepts it was not really understood and, like all fashionable things, it soon faded and made way for newer, more fashionable things.
" the Russian concept of 'hybrid-warfare' that seas 'war' as a long-standing, near permanent state of relations "
I would say that is more a Marxist/Communist concept than Russian. Then again, I like to pick nits.
Dangerous territory. It could be done to us in return. When Genl Heydrich was assassinated there were terrible repercussions that made it not worthwhile. Trump did it but they knew Trump was not Biden. So you have a point
You mean Lidice. What would constitute an Iranian Lidice? They go into a Kurdish or Baluchi town in Iran and wipe it out? Cross border to Iraq or Afghanistan maybe? What does any of that accomplish? If they could do it to Israel they would have by now. To the US? If they can do that to us, we'd better find out now before things really get spicy.
Why do you feel 'war with Iran' has to be what you describe?
Why does everyone treat war as a light switch? It's like we have 2 speeds, off and on. Either at peace, or invading...
There are a WHOLE host of types of warfare and options that exist short of 'total war and invasion'.
It's time we embraced 'hybrid-warfare' and recognized that, like it or not, Iran sees itself as being 'at war' with the US. We should do them the courtesy of treating them in like manner.
Let them have their country. We can rid the world, outside the borders of Iran, of Iranian influence, if we had national leadership and willpower to do so.
Because a forever war is not something that works, my example is the twenty year long war with Iraq/Afghanistan. It must be ended one way or the other like NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.
But I do agree with your thoughts and understand what course you state.
Pound the proxies’ supply depots. They aren’t supposed to exist; Iran can’t complain when we destroy supplies that Iran says it didn’t send to groups they say they don’t control. The cost of being a proxie should be very high.
Can we win that cost exchange? Blowing up a million $20 RPG warheads with 10 2$ million Tomahawks is meh. I imagine we can but I don't really know, and so far what have we accomplished in Houthistan? Have we not gone hard enough or what? Perhaps the Ukrainians could send us a downed Shahed and we could crank out a bunch of those to at least do the hits on the cheap.
...and as much of a hawk as I sound like about hitting Iran, not ONCE did ground troops ever come to mind. The last 20yrs should be a pretty good lesson in what NOT to do!!
I saw somewhere the administration (Biden?) was saying that we would carefully calibrate our response to this latest attack. Carefully calibrated escalation with scheduled pauses to induce the foe to moderate conduct has been the bane of every conflict we have engaged in from Vietnam to Afghanistan, to current situations in Iraq and the Red Sea. Do we never learn? Careful calibration turned the Vietnam War into an unwinnable morass. It turned Iraq into a catastrophe, and Afghanistan into a 20-year quagmire. It is the conceit of the unsure, the dithering, the cultured elite, the self-identified globalist sophisticate as much as the unprincipled fretters wringing their hands over what others than their own might think or do, when the consequences should be immediate, devastating and out of all proportion to the abilities, standing or interests of the offender. Dictate the consequences, do not calibrate them.
The response should have been immediate - the commands should be authorized to act at once and overwhelmingly without having to wait for approval. Reinstitute the time-tested concept of punitive expeditions ... exact severe consequences and go home, with the explicit understanding there is more where that came from if you do it again.
As I have written elsewhere, there should be smoking holes wherever there is an Iranian proxy launcher, support facility, command center, supply hub, troop center – you get the idea. Houthi forces afloat? Sink them on sight. Iran supplying targeting information via a ship in the Red Sea? Sink it – OK, if you have qualms, warn them to remove it or lose it, but if they don’t – sink it right away. The Iranian frigate now in the Red Sea? Same thing – send her home or we send her to the bottom. No occupation, no gradual escalation, no pause for reflection, no wringing of hands about international comity, no inducements to join in the brotherhood of nations, no ground troops or democracy building ... f**k with us and pay a price – do not dare to attack us, our national interests or those of the free world we represent. "This Government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."
Careful calibration is designed to maximize MIC profit, State department and DoD influence, international diplomacy glad-handing and credentials, fleecing of the civilian (and military) citizenry, and to provide a never-ending source of electoral talking-points.
In short, it is the ideal situation for a government that needs to be at war with Eurasia, (or East Asia) perpetually for domestic reasons.
In human and animal behavior, speed of reinforcement is the primary factor. If we were able to strike them back within an hour of their attacks, they would learn the lesson far better, even if we only sent a DJI with a 9mm to strafe them, than when we send 100 cruise missiles a month later.
Exactly. Deterrence is a function of the swiftness, and the certainty, of consequence to the point that to a small degree (stressing small degree) the severity of the consequence is less of a factor. This is the critical insight that has been ignored in both our foreign affairs as well as the criminal justice system domestically. A consequence that is not swift OR not certain, does not deter no matter how severe it is. Of course both factors are missing in our current response system – neither swift nor certain – and the woeful results are abundantly clear. Thus is crime rampant on our streets and our constitutionally guaranteed liberty abridged. No differently are the unrestrained attacks upon our people and our interests internationally inflicting wanton death and injury, restricting freedom of commerce, flouting any suggestion of consequence. Our government must do better.
Army Guard deployed into combat, apparently lightly equipped and defended. How many months would it take to get anything active duty and heavier than the 18th ABN Corps into theater in a meaningful way? (More time than we have, I'm guessing). To CJCS: your stated goal of deterrence was failing, it has now officially publicly failed. The perceived negative effect of the graduated, slow, measured (dare I say proportional) kinetic responses to Iranian proxy attacks was insufficient (as evidenced by their continuing). How much actual combat power can be brought to bear on the region and hit enough high value targets to reverse the trends? (How are the preferred munition stock levels and VLS cells doing?). What is Iran's real goal and strategy for achieving them? (Would be nice to know as it informs the target list). Lastly, open source reporting indicates the former Persian Empire may be VERY close to having nukes. The new variables that breaking the nuclear threshold would introduce into everyone's decision calculus (Israel's included) is significant.
"Army Guard deployed into combat, apparently lightly equipped and defended. "
The location is described as a "patrol base". I doubt that much ground patrolling was being done, given the lack of a big vehicle park. Looks to me to be a drone base.
As far as lightly armed? rifles and Javelins aren't the issue. I'd like to know that they had the current Army versions of:
I don't think our leaders know what a Pandora's box they have opened with all those drone strikes in A'stan and elsewhere. Drones are (relatively) cheap and not particularly cutting-edge technically. And our enemies are not stupid; ignorant, perhaps, but they can and do learn--unlike, evidently, our "masters of the universe" with their elite educations and gold-plated credentials.
"Before we go further, there is something in the above I want you to hoist aboard; we have an entire division of a state’s National Guard deployed - and being killed and wounded - to in part ensure the borders and territorial integrity of nations in the Middle East"
I question this strongly. It's possible that soldiers from the 40th form an HQ element, or maybe a BCT HQ deployed along with a Task force based on an Inf Bn?
But not "an entire Division". If the entire Oregon Guard deployed it would be huge here in Oregon, or WA, or CA.
The three soldiers killed are Sgt. William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Georgia; Spc. Kennedy Ladon Sanders of Waycross, Georgia; and Spc. Breonna Alexsondria Moffett of Savannah, Georgia. All three were assigned to the 718th Engineer Company, 926th Engineer Battalion, 926th Engineer Brigade, Fort Moore, Georgia.
Reserve construction engineers from Georgia. My guess? building barracks. wrong place, wrong time. BTW: I don't see internal revetments around the barracks
Spot on as usual Sal. I'm starting to think we have some kind of mind-meld going on, as I spend my evenings thinking and ranting to myself and then I read my rants on YOUR posts :)
I'd like to address a specific comment you made in more detail.
"If I am wrong in this assumption, then fire the entire Joint Staff above CDR/LtCol, but I am quite sure we have an entire catalog of pre-planned responses and target sets ready to go and have for quite a while. This is not a military problem; this is a leadership, vision, and understanding of how the world works problem. Elections have consequences, and we are at the mercy of those appointed by those we elect."
My fear is that we DO need to fire that entire Joint Staff. We are 3 years into the Blinken/Sullivan'ization of the entire National Security Council and Joint Staff.
What people work on get's reviewed by senior leaders. I am CERTAIN no one in the C-o-C is submitting optional warplans for strikes against Iranian targets without being asked for it, and I am certain Sullivan and Co. are not asking for it.
On another note, I think you have touched on an issue that affects a great deal of our national strategic issues lately, and that is the tendency by many pundits to push strawman extreme arguments to delegitimize opposition, leading to the conservative movements sudden embrace of 'peace at any price' while the Neocons push for the occupation and pacification of Tehran.
I 100% agree we should not be going feet dry in Iran, not with ground forces, not with manned aviation.
But again, every single Iranian owned or flagged vessel in the world could be a new environmentally friendly artificial reef by late tomorrow if the national leadership had the huevos to get it done.
This regime is too far up its hole that even with a plexiglass belly button it wouldn't be able to observe events. The response to being attacked should be to respond with overwhelming force, not "proportionality." We do not seem to have any sort of operations plan in the region, and likely won't until another butt rests in the Oval Office, and I'm not sure we'll even have something then. The regime will do nothing constructive to retaliate, and we seem to be quickly losing the means to do so. At best, I expect some sort of media fetish response where we blow a hole in some sand and clap each other on the back for what bad-arses we are.
Yea. I’m over “proportionality”. It’s been drilled into every CO and TAO by the lawfare zealots for the last decades. Sometimes a Lion needs to rip the shit out of the hyena to remind everyone including himself that he is a fucking Lion…
Id go a lil further... Id like to see responses that not only end the immediate problem, but are noticed internationally, and give other bad actors pause- and make them weigh and reconsider their plans. Responses worth doing should not only solve a problem, but deter the next one.
We spend /waste a lot of money on forward deployments and silly things like FONOPS. I get the idea, but does any of that truly create deterrence? I dont think so. I think only the properly applied use of a lil overkill does that.
Personally, I feel the Iranian vessel that keeps suspiciously drifting around Yemen as the attacks are being made should be turned into a flaming wreck immediately. After that we can start thinking about other responses.
Also, stop Iran's revenue streams in their tracks. Seize Iranian flagged vessels carrying oil to all points. No more funding our enemies.
Concur with Dave. The seizures might be part of a larger CONOPS effort, but reducing significantly their oil revenues not only demonstrates resolve but also breadth of international capabilities. It also can display forbearance in minimal loss of civilian casualties. A no trainer…which is why “foggy bottom” will argue endlessly against it.
Send every mullah and ayatollah a picture of his house with its precise laditude and longitude and his car with its license plate #.
Sounds good, but doesn't actually work
Why? Because the Mullahs actually ARE willing to die.
We keep thinking the political leadership in Iran are just like any politician, and don't actually believe that nonsense.
They DO believe it. Do they SEEK their own personal deaths? No. But they will NEVER be swayed by personal threats.
The only thing that will deter them is if they feel the EMPIRE they think they are building is at risk of being dismantled, stone by stone, such that they will go down in history as failures.
Being remembers as Martyr's while they get their rocks off in Haji-heaven with a bunch of horny angels is EXACTLY how they see their lives playing out.
Watching it all go up in flames and being remembered as failures is a deterrent.
Does the Big Guy get 10% on 72 virgins?
Pretty sure 10% is all he has to GIVE them at this point
LMAO
Perhaps, but I'm still in favor of paroling them to Jesus.
He gets the last word.
"Why? Because the Mullahs actually ARE willing to die."
Which is why our strategy of "decapitating" their organizations by drone was a predictable failure. Not to mention that it sets a precedent ; THEY have drones now. Another (mis)quote---"Uneasy is [should be] the head that wears the crown".
The mullahs are willing to see their proxies die. The mullahs themselves? Not sure about that
Do they WANT to die? no.
But again, this is western failure to think like they do.
Their response to our actions will be one in anger AND fear.
What do they fear more?
1) Dying?
or
2) Being perceived as phonies and cowards by their people.
I would argue that at this point, their decades of mental embrace of this stuff leaves them incapable of showing fear or backing down in the face of threats. They'll move around and try to avoid getting hit, but at the end of the day, they won't alter their policies or external behaviors just to reduce the risk to themselves.
You know what all martyrs have in common? They're all dead and unable to affect events. Peel the onion and sooner or later you get to a layer without smut.
We would have to cut deep and with a plan. After forty+ years of giving them the hairy eyeball, we ought to know which ones of them are reasonable, which ones are bribable, which ones have kompromat issues. Don't tell me they're all clean. I won't listen to you. Kill their leadership down to the level where a "friendly" is in line to take over, or a suite of them.
Easier said than done perhaps. Says no enemy of the USA whatever. They just figure out how to do it. Like we did in the fifties and sixties while we still had the stones/cultural confidence.
As we've seen in Gaza, this is much harder to do in practice than to say.
We would have to kill a LOT of people. all of whom would be hiding amongst civilians in a nation with respectable air defense capabilities.
Look how hard it has been for Israel in Gaza. And they are next-door, own all the airspace, and overmatch FAR more than we would against Iran.
Now tell me the American people would support and sustain such a campaign with far more civilian deaths and ZERO on-the-scene BDA to prove we were hitting our targets, not to mention the inevitable deaths amongst air-crew, and the public torture and execution of captured aircrew.
There is no easy 'win' from taking the war into Iran proper, and it gives the regime the ability to rally the population.
Especially when there are SO MANY easier Iranian proxy and deployed military asset targets that can be struck outside Iran
Indeed. But we have more resources, and above all, we have had TIME. Nov.4, 1979 was 44 years 2 months and 3 weeks ago. Every day since then it should have been the single job of at least one man, if not a team, at the Pentagon, to consider, a, How can we bowb Iran today, and b, How do we end them when the American people finally elect a President with guts? This should have been a generational project. Americans should have long memories. Everybody we admire does. 40 plus years, that's two generations, that's two government retirements, we should have a plan by now. A good plan. How much work and time did we put into blipping Mossadegh? How many thousand times harder can this crew be?
And yeah, we have to get out of the pattern of being afraid to get red-handed. I guess that's the kicker. I'm not apt to casually say something like, we should go nuclear early (I mean hard targets like Fordow rather than schwacking population centers) but all those ramifications should be considered and perhaps considered afresh by a Team B approach rejecting current possibly ossified assumptions.
But your whole assumption of a drama with captured aircrews, we need to be well beyond that. Massive biblical retaliation for even making such a threat.
Of course this will upend the entire world order. Which we should also be prepared to manage instead of simply having happen.
That vessel should suffer a mysterious and catastrophic failure to stay afloat.
I vote for a Marie Celeste solution. Give them the heebie-jeebies.
I disagree. This action should be Wholly and 100% attributable to the US Navy.
We should roll the USS Carney up in broad daylight, announce that they have 60 seconds to abandon ship, and then proceed to use that 5" gun in anger for the first time in a long time, until the tub sinks
A couple of torpedoes in the middle of the night should do it.
That one spy boat drifting around cataloging all shipping going into the red sea for sure.
Hit the supply depots!
That and their oil platforms, plus freeze the money again.
I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling deep in my gut that the Iranians are trying to provoke an attack that would justify turning on their sleeper cells for attacks on the electrical / internet grids
We are indeed swamped with Latin American guerillas, Chinese soldiers and Islamic terrorist.
What about the Islamic soldiers, Chinese guerillas, and Latin American terrorists? They're gonna fee left out of the party.
Sadly, whether Leftist, Islamist, Anarchist, or just basic criminals we've let many thousands in over the past few years.
Too many. It appears an entire company of Chinese soldiers were stopped at the border.
I fear that while all eyes are on the Gulf of Aden we will be sideswiped some where else.
electrical, comms, natural gas, and throw in a few large reservoirs for good measure
Well, we can just sit trembling under the fear of that threat forever instead.
Officials are saying they mistook it for a USA drone expected back at that same time as the attack. I know that US military aircraft have friend or foe signals other aircraft can "See" so there are no friendly fire incidents. This seems to me to be totally CYA. What say you? I'm certain drones have this too. We are not talking small drones
well, the Iranian's and proxies are not stupid. What are the odds they have been watching to see if our troops developed patterns of behavior they could take advantage of.
If the base DID expect a drone to return at that time, because local commanders got lazy and allowed their troops to develop predictable routines, then it would have been a no-brainer for the Iranian proxies to slip a drone weapon in to arrive at just before our drone.
and lazy troops might not have bothered to check IFF if they expected an arrival.
This type of deception has been used for military purposes for as long as humans have been banding together to throw rocks at each other.
Exactly my thoughts. This would be the same way we lost the F-117 during the Bosnian War.
I doubt if there is any need to go to all that effort. Do we have a sensor network/system (like radar) to detect and/or track drones? I will bet NO.
Or you just fly 5 feet above it and 10 feet behind it. It's not like the pilot can see you and I bet it is running on autopilot.
found the submariner
Also not impossible that equipment maintenance and/or drone quality control has decreased to the "got another bad IFF on drone 69" level.
Far from impossible, i'd imagine this is the most likely situation. These are not exquisite systems, they're newish, the troops employing them are new to them etc etc etc. Perfect storm of conditions.
Not to mention its the sort of thing our enemies can intentionally influence (simulate the condition often enough we get numb to it) relatively cheaply
Agree with your theory, but if it was the case it would/should never have been revealed… especially so quickly. Ergo its a cover
Similar to the deaths of our two seals…. The official response should have been “its under investigation” instead we get a story within 48 hrs
Iran has the luxury of several crucial coincidences:
- we are no longer credible as a nation
- like Rome, our legions have stayed too long on the frontier and no longer have the resources or the political willpower to execute their missions
- what is their mission?
- a hamstrung and self inflicting department of “defense”
- close lines of communication and ability to fill in the vacuum
- a hubric imperial DC political system
WTF is the national guard filling out legionnaire ranks? We have 450k regular US Army troops. Certainly a brigade combat team can be pieced together out of that to do our imperial duties instead of using a state guard? We are not a serious nation.
The ANG needs to be on our borders defending them not in Jordan being whack a duck targets.
I suggest that entire NG divisions are being deployed overseas precisely so they CANNOT be on our borders. Standby for the Texas NG to be called up for overseas deployment. If I was Governor Abbott, I ‘d simply say “No.”
There it is, that's why there have our forces always over there.
^^ This ^^
Take a breath guys.
It's a CALIFORNIA NG unit. And not the first time it has deployed. It was in Afghanistan as well, though not as large a deployment.
But it's not like Governor Hairdo was actually gonna use the NG for the CA border, so that theory doesn't hold up there.
All the soldiers killed and wounded were from Georgia.
Carrollton, Waycross and Savannah.
Engineer outfit in a "Logistics hub" aka an base where SF can infiltrate into Syria most likely.
2 different things. The convo was regarding the activation of the NG 40th division. That's the CA unit.
The troops killed were from an Army Reserve engineer battalion in GA, not National Guard.
Deep south state here, it was a Georgia unit of the national guard.
Local men and women.
They belonged to Georgia not California.
Like being a detached Marine unit from CLNC 2d MarDiv FMF serving with the Army 1st Cavalry division and they get KIA they do not become 1st cav.
These people were from Georgia end of story.
Don't disrespect these soldiers with your problems with Newsome and California ultimately they were American soldiers.
For whatever reason, the NG has been turned into the administration's (not just Brandon's) forward deployed troops. I know ANG folks that have been deployed overseas more times and longer than regular Army or Air Force troops.
At least we don't have an old sick and senile emperor like Claudius.
I see what you did there.
Well, our current "emperor" is a former Senator who doesn't even rise to the level of Caligula's horse ... being that Caligula sought to appoint a WHOLE horse to the Roman Senate, not just the rear half.
The Roman Deep State found old sick Claudius quivering behind a curtain and proclaimed him emperor.
"Is this what we have a National Guard for?"...it is now. NG troops were reintegrated at unprecedented levels for Iraq. Oh, the irony of "watching" one border while neglecting your own.
Our reliance on the homogeneous NG is demonstrative of the dysfunction of our standing federal army.
I think it indicates we are engaging in foreign adventures for which Congress has not voted and the of which the populace does not approve.
My thoughts have evolved a great deal the past decade+, but I think we should have a Navy (with perhaps the air force an extension of it for power protection), Missiles and Defense, JSOC for JSOC S$%t, and no standing army nor deployed troops without Congress voting to raise it specifically for geographic purpose and stated goals. A small reserve force to maintain training structures and doctrine but not to be deployed (although in the event of Congress declaring war many would of course be activated).
National Guard should be for guarding the nation
Lt. Harry Brubaker would agree.
Well, I'd rather have Guard units deployed on imperial duties than standing behind fences protecting politicians against phantom menaces in our capitol.
Sadly, I think that's the plan for our new illegal immigrant recruiting base.
We need to get you into senior leadership stat.
"Well General Brown, Your entire CONOPS is failing."
But he, like the other diversity hire Hospital Austin, can never be fired.
And Graham isn't wrong. You can hit without hanging around. Whack 'em hard, and then whack 'em again if needed. We have the tools.
Tuco nailed the problem with Lady G's bloviating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKGmBYv09jQ
Don't we have hackers? Wreck the mullahs' cyber assets, and supercharge the capabilities of online Iranian dissidents. Keep the mullahs too busy at home to bother reaching past their borders. Stoke unrest, then stoke it some more.
US cyber policy prevents 'offensive' (ie.. destructive, vs snooping for info) cyber activity without an act of war or presidential direction.
I think we've had 170+ acts of war and counting.
no doubt, I'm just saying that those organizations have a culture which restricts and de-emphasizes 'offensive' cyber, because we have not had a declared war in 73 years and POYUS has ZERO inclination to strike at the Iranians.
Act of war vs declared war are 2 different legal animals.
Ergo, it won't happen under current leadership.
We did that in 2009 and Obama turned his back on the poor Iranians. We have no credibility. Remember Hong Kong in 2020? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Jarrett will never tolerate actually hurting the Iranian leadership.
Pretty sure it's "lil'Jake" callin' the shots on all these issues, but "supa' Val" is definitely still in the mix
Direction? From this Administration?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0824c992e587df17cc22194bb65b712520c4d44d53858ec3a414dc0b8fd85752.jpg
Unfortunate that the policy seems not to apply to domestic citizens anymore
That's what executive orders are for.
Id say once the dissidents gain some traction...then thats the time to eliminate their govt down to about GS-4 level, along with their military and arms production capability. Oh and nuclear sites and oil export terminals too. Then let the Iranians decide what their next govt will look like and how itll act. We suggest they change their path and point out we could return if needed...
Eliminating the supplier and funder of most of the region's problem children would not only largely curtail their operations, but also show China that we arent unwilling to do what needs to be done in support of friends and/or in a region that needs our stabilizing attention.
As MrT commented nearby, some of that was in the works 15 years ago and Obama/Jarrett nixed it.
This is harder than it sounds without resorting to nuclear weapons.
Iran's Netanz and Fordow facilities, especially Natanz, are DEEP buried.
I got to sit in on some briefings back in '09 that made clear that successfully destroying that facility with anything other than nuclear weapons would be a low probability success mission for us.
The Iranians learned UGF construction from the NorK's, who learned it from the Russians and then applied there own special blend of crazy and paranoia.
Hitting Iranian assets OUTSIDE Iran is very feasible, but I honestly don't think we want the level or scale involved in taking it to their entire government.
Besides, that would be the one thing that would unite the Iranian people behind the government.
Hit everything they have outside their borders and embargo them, and the people will suffer the sanctions and blame the government.
Woah, a reasoned, articulate, opinion! Here, in the comments?
I make absolutely no apologies for my 100% conservative and constitutionalist world-view, but I'm also a 100% realist.
I despise straw-man arguments and absolutism when most truths are nuanced.
I believe 100% in "Si Vis Pacem, Parabellum", and that Weakness in the face of aggression invites more aggression.
I also equally reject the idea that we can bring democracy or western values to people who are culturally unsuited to them via military intervention.
Ergo, I find myself straddling the line between the NeoCon forever war idiots and the isolationist America Only idiots.
There’s no reason to be ashamed of being a real conservative. Careful, cautious, prudence is a conservative value.
Most people nowadays no longer want to take the time to understand nuance. Everybody is caught up in "My side is right therefore EVERYTHING that ANYBODY on the OTHER SIDE says MUST BE WRONG"
I've lost good friends over my unapologetic support of Ukraine. If I could find a conservative billionaire 'sugar-daddy' to support my family, I would go to Ukraine myself.
And I utterly reject the idea that a nation as great as ours has to choose between securing our border and supporting a nation like Ukraine or Taiwan against the predations of autocratic bullies like Russia or China.
We are capable of both. The border is not a resource issue, it is a political willpower issue and the current admin and most dems want open borders for more govt addicted dem voters. (and establishment Repubs want open borders for cheap labor)
All issues I hope to address soon on my own new substack :)
Well Id be the last one to suggest going nuclear... Thats a hard pass. I have no knowledge about the actual sites or their hardening... But maybe at the least the access points could be destroyed(?) making them at least inaccessible for a while (??)
And youre right, there's a fine line between hitting a govt and leaving a vacuum that is filled with somthing better, and uniting a people and it only becoming worse. Thats pretty hard to predict. I certainly dont have any ideas that a western democracy will appear and flourish. But at the same time, the Iranian leaders and their anti-western ideology IS the problem. And I'm not convinced that anything we do outside their borders will have any serious effect on their course. The only exception being bankrupting them by ending their oil exports completely. I think thatd have to be done through more serious means than sanctions- either a blockade (which wouldnt likely get much support from the rest of the wirld) or outright destroying all the shipping facilities. Even if we did that, the amount of exported terrorist support would likely increase til it becomes unsustainable, and the general population would suffer mightily and unnecessasarilly.
Im trying to avoid sounding like a crazy war hawk here...Id really rather our men n women stay outta harms way. But... Im not sure that anything less than removing the Iranian leadership and/or their military production capabilities is going to change anything in the region...
I hear you and agree in many respects.
1) majority of Iranian arms to proxies move by ship. even without other international support, we could end most of that unilaterally if we were committed. Would they send by other means? sure. but the net would be a reduction in their arming of proxies
2) add interdiction of any air traffic through airspace we can impact. allow civilian airliners, which means some arms smuggling, and they'll send a bunch through airspace we can't interdict, but again, it would produce a net reduction in arming of proxies
3) The idea in your first paragraph is something I am not allowed to speak to in substance due to what I've been exposed to, but I'll say your on the right path.
4) Then get serious about hitting the proxies. No safe landing zones in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or any other shithole we can bomb with relative impunity.
"...we could end most of that unilaterally if we were committed. "
And sadly, thats our stumbling block. My ideas, your ideas...and so many others could get results if only leadership had the will to do somthing meaningful. So while I applaud the strikes on the Houthis, on the other hand, we're treating a symptom, not the problem.
A good point about air traffic and interdiction. I wonder truly how good our intel is on weapons traffic and storage inside Iran. Because if we could locate warehouses that supply the air shipments... Im going to assume we probably have that info, or could get it if we were so inclined. While yes, hitting the destination sites works- Im also nervously watching our weapons stock levels and wondering how long we can hit proxies before we reach a crisis magazine level, and thinking we should focus upstream.
Oh and interesting note about nuclear sites. I never was privy to any high level info or anything like that beyond what saturdays mess deck desert was, or maybe who our COs new model gf of the week was! But very much figured that an undestroyed site is still useless if its inaccessible. Where there's a will...but ill leave that one alone-'Nuff said!
Missiles are expensive. Bombs are cheap.
Iran has layered air defenses, ergo, we would need to use lot's of missiles.
Most proxies are permissive air environments, ergo, we could use bombs (JDAM) instead of wasting TLAM's and JASM's.
For that matter, the AirForce's QuickSink project would make short work of pretty much everything Iranian that floats at MUCH lower cost than ASCM's
https://www.twz.com/watch-the-air-forces-new-ship-killing-smart-bomb-snap-a-ship-in-two
(point of pride, if you read the entire article, you'll note that in the update at the end, the author credits a 'reader' with pointing out how the munition actually works. That 'reader' would be yours truly, which is why I saved this article)
2nd question. Since Iran and its proxies have committed large numbers of acts of war against us, how do we avoid total war with Iran? How do you respond in such a way to put a chill on Irans calculations?
OR. Is war with Iran inevitable? Are we even capable of significant military ops against Iran?
War with Iran is not inevitable. That suggests it has not started yet.
We ARE AT WAR with Iran. Why? Because Iran is at war with us, whether we chose to acknowledge it or not.
War does not have to be 'total war' with invasions and mass carpet bombing.
The Iranians, and most of our adversaries around the world, now wholeheartedly embrace the Russian concept of 'hybrid-warfare' that seas 'war' as a long-standing, near permanent state of relations in which various mechanisms are used based on the prevailing conditions.
One day it's cyber, another terror, another proxy attacks, etc etc etc.
The sooner we accept and acknowledge this, and begin responding in kind, the sooner Iran will learn it's measures are no longer producing the outcomes they seek.
Rule #1 of all Human (and for that matter, all animal) behavior.
You get more of the behavior you reward and less of the behavior you punish.
Ie.. if the costs are high enough, the behavior will decline. If they see the costs as bearable for the benefits they seek, they will continue the behavior.
Pretty simple, really.
Some folks have learned nothing from the contest between "Capitalism" and "Marxism/Leninism/Communism". Not enough time, I guess; too new.
AKA history.
"War does not have to be 'total war' with invasions and mass carpet bombing."
I wish more people would embrace this concept. "OMG we're at war. Better send 100,000 ground pounders" is not a valid position for the 21st century. There is nothing we want to take or defend in Iran. Reduce the threat; there is no need more ground action.
There was a concept that was quite fashionable among the chattering classes and strategerists a couple of years ago; "asymmetric warfare". Like other fashionable concepts it was not really understood and, like all fashionable things, it soon faded and made way for newer, more fashionable things.
" the Russian concept of 'hybrid-warfare' that seas 'war' as a long-standing, near permanent state of relations "
I would say that is more a Marxist/Communist concept than Russian. Then again, I like to pick nits.
A serious POTUS could quietly eliminate Executive Order 11905.
But you also answered your own implied question when you specified "serious"
Dangerous territory. It could be done to us in return. When Genl Heydrich was assassinated there were terrible repercussions that made it not worthwhile. Trump did it but they knew Trump was not Biden. So you have a point
You mean Lidice. What would constitute an Iranian Lidice? They go into a Kurdish or Baluchi town in Iran and wipe it out? Cross border to Iraq or Afghanistan maybe? What does any of that accomplish? If they could do it to Israel they would have by now. To the US? If they can do that to us, we'd better find out now before things really get spicy.
1. No sane person wants to go to war with Iran, we might win but the cost is prohibitive.
2. We cannot let this war go unanswered it is to costly in everything.
3. Attacking Proxies won't end the war.
4. It is an election year.
5. All Joe will do is broadcast where his bombs will fall and then blow holes in the sand and empty buildings.
6. Joe Incorporated will essential do nothing and expend more honor and respect world wide.
7. We are in deep, deep Kimchee.
Why do you feel 'war with Iran' has to be what you describe?
Why does everyone treat war as a light switch? It's like we have 2 speeds, off and on. Either at peace, or invading...
There are a WHOLE host of types of warfare and options that exist short of 'total war and invasion'.
It's time we embraced 'hybrid-warfare' and recognized that, like it or not, Iran sees itself as being 'at war' with the US. We should do them the courtesy of treating them in like manner.
Let them have their country. We can rid the world, outside the borders of Iran, of Iranian influence, if we had national leadership and willpower to do so.
Because a forever war is not something that works, my example is the twenty year long war with Iraq/Afghanistan. It must be ended one way or the other like NAZI Germany and Imperial Japan.
But I do agree with your thoughts and understand what course you state.
We must do something there has to be a plan.
I think William's point is that one can engage in warfare without a ground invasion. Perhaps we are discussing a semantic issue?
This is shaping up to be one of the key elements of my own substack - I'm working on my intro posting now.
The lack of, or deliberate avoidance of, nuance in geostrategic thought
A ground war into Iran is lost before it begins.
Iran is a very rough terrain to fight in, the cities would be death traps.
We have to hit economic target oil platforms, pipelines rail, bridges and leadership.
Pound the proxies’ supply depots. They aren’t supposed to exist; Iran can’t complain when we destroy supplies that Iran says it didn’t send to groups they say they don’t control. The cost of being a proxie should be very high.
Can we win that cost exchange? Blowing up a million $20 RPG warheads with 10 2$ million Tomahawks is meh. I imagine we can but I don't really know, and so far what have we accomplished in Houthistan? Have we not gone hard enough or what? Perhaps the Ukrainians could send us a downed Shahed and we could crank out a bunch of those to at least do the hits on the cheap.
It is the only way short of bullets and bayonets on the ground.
Well, JDAMs are cheap at least.
Or we can get wise to ourselves and build a Shahed equivalent for tens of thousands of dollars instead of for millions.
...and as much of a hawk as I sound like about hitting Iran, not ONCE did ground troops ever come to mind. The last 20yrs should be a pretty good lesson in what NOT to do!!
I saw somewhere the administration (Biden?) was saying that we would carefully calibrate our response to this latest attack. Carefully calibrated escalation with scheduled pauses to induce the foe to moderate conduct has been the bane of every conflict we have engaged in from Vietnam to Afghanistan, to current situations in Iraq and the Red Sea. Do we never learn? Careful calibration turned the Vietnam War into an unwinnable morass. It turned Iraq into a catastrophe, and Afghanistan into a 20-year quagmire. It is the conceit of the unsure, the dithering, the cultured elite, the self-identified globalist sophisticate as much as the unprincipled fretters wringing their hands over what others than their own might think or do, when the consequences should be immediate, devastating and out of all proportion to the abilities, standing or interests of the offender. Dictate the consequences, do not calibrate them.
The response should have been immediate - the commands should be authorized to act at once and overwhelmingly without having to wait for approval. Reinstitute the time-tested concept of punitive expeditions ... exact severe consequences and go home, with the explicit understanding there is more where that came from if you do it again.
As I have written elsewhere, there should be smoking holes wherever there is an Iranian proxy launcher, support facility, command center, supply hub, troop center – you get the idea. Houthi forces afloat? Sink them on sight. Iran supplying targeting information via a ship in the Red Sea? Sink it – OK, if you have qualms, warn them to remove it or lose it, but if they don’t – sink it right away. The Iranian frigate now in the Red Sea? Same thing – send her home or we send her to the bottom. No occupation, no gradual escalation, no pause for reflection, no wringing of hands about international comity, no inducements to join in the brotherhood of nations, no ground troops or democracy building ... f**k with us and pay a price – do not dare to attack us, our national interests or those of the free world we represent. "This Government wants Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead."
Agreed. I think some UN-proportional responses are overdue. A lil overreaction might be the way to go for a change!!
Careful calibration is designed to maximize MIC profit, State department and DoD influence, international diplomacy glad-handing and credentials, fleecing of the civilian (and military) citizenry, and to provide a never-ending source of electoral talking-points.
In short, it is the ideal situation for a government that needs to be at war with Eurasia, (or East Asia) perpetually for domestic reasons.
In Biden’s eyes American lives are probably worth 2/3 of an Iranian one- so two Iranians better watch out.
...only if they're white.
In human and animal behavior, speed of reinforcement is the primary factor. If we were able to strike them back within an hour of their attacks, they would learn the lesson far better, even if we only sent a DJI with a 9mm to strafe them, than when we send 100 cruise missiles a month later.
Exactly. Deterrence is a function of the swiftness, and the certainty, of consequence to the point that to a small degree (stressing small degree) the severity of the consequence is less of a factor. This is the critical insight that has been ignored in both our foreign affairs as well as the criminal justice system domestically. A consequence that is not swift OR not certain, does not deter no matter how severe it is. Of course both factors are missing in our current response system – neither swift nor certain – and the woeful results are abundantly clear. Thus is crime rampant on our streets and our constitutionally guaranteed liberty abridged. No differently are the unrestrained attacks upon our people and our interests internationally inflicting wanton death and injury, restricting freedom of commerce, flouting any suggestion of consequence. Our government must do better.
CDR, insightful summation. Thoughts:
Army Guard deployed into combat, apparently lightly equipped and defended. How many months would it take to get anything active duty and heavier than the 18th ABN Corps into theater in a meaningful way? (More time than we have, I'm guessing). To CJCS: your stated goal of deterrence was failing, it has now officially publicly failed. The perceived negative effect of the graduated, slow, measured (dare I say proportional) kinetic responses to Iranian proxy attacks was insufficient (as evidenced by their continuing). How much actual combat power can be brought to bear on the region and hit enough high value targets to reverse the trends? (How are the preferred munition stock levels and VLS cells doing?). What is Iran's real goal and strategy for achieving them? (Would be nice to know as it informs the target list). Lastly, open source reporting indicates the former Persian Empire may be VERY close to having nukes. The new variables that breaking the nuclear threshold would introduce into everyone's decision calculus (Israel's included) is significant.
"Army Guard deployed into combat, apparently lightly equipped and defended. "
The location is described as a "patrol base". I doubt that much ground patrolling was being done, given the lack of a big vehicle park. Looks to me to be a drone base.
As far as lightly armed? rifles and Javelins aren't the issue. I'd like to know that they had the current Army versions of:
- Firefinder anti-mortar radar
- CIWS
- anti-drone ECM
- cell phone blocking jammers
- a SIGINT Team
I'm betting the answer is no to all the above. I think you're correct, looks like a large OP, not much more. Doesn't look like an SF compound, either.
I don't think our leaders know what a Pandora's box they have opened with all those drone strikes in A'stan and elsewhere. Drones are (relatively) cheap and not particularly cutting-edge technically. And our enemies are not stupid; ignorant, perhaps, but they can and do learn--unlike, evidently, our "masters of the universe" with their elite educations and gold-plated credentials.
"Before we go further, there is something in the above I want you to hoist aboard; we have an entire division of a state’s National Guard deployed - and being killed and wounded - to in part ensure the borders and territorial integrity of nations in the Middle East"
I question this strongly. It's possible that soldiers from the 40th form an HQ element, or maybe a BCT HQ deployed along with a Task force based on an Inf Bn?
But not "an entire Division". If the entire Oregon Guard deployed it would be huge here in Oregon, or WA, or CA.
Can you validate?
The three soldiers killed are Sgt. William Jerome Rivers of Carrollton, Georgia; Spc. Kennedy Ladon Sanders of Waycross, Georgia; and Spc. Breonna Alexsondria Moffett of Savannah, Georgia. All three were assigned to the 718th Engineer Company, 926th Engineer Battalion, 926th Engineer Brigade, Fort Moore, Georgia.
Reserve construction engineers from Georgia. My guess? building barracks. wrong place, wrong time. BTW: I don't see internal revetments around the barracks
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3659809/3-us-service-members-killed-others-injured-in-jordan-following-drone-attack/
I doubt kinetically degraded proxies would alter decision making in Tehran one jot.
Kinetically degraded IRGC command assets? They’d notice that.
I’d go with the one they’d notice.
Kinetically degraded proxies, properly culled regardless of collateral damage, would soon reconsider their roles as puppets.
Or, you can't be a puppeteer if your source of puppets is burned to a crisp.
Spot on as usual Sal. I'm starting to think we have some kind of mind-meld going on, as I spend my evenings thinking and ranting to myself and then I read my rants on YOUR posts :)
I'd like to address a specific comment you made in more detail.
"If I am wrong in this assumption, then fire the entire Joint Staff above CDR/LtCol, but I am quite sure we have an entire catalog of pre-planned responses and target sets ready to go and have for quite a while. This is not a military problem; this is a leadership, vision, and understanding of how the world works problem. Elections have consequences, and we are at the mercy of those appointed by those we elect."
My fear is that we DO need to fire that entire Joint Staff. We are 3 years into the Blinken/Sullivan'ization of the entire National Security Council and Joint Staff.
What people work on get's reviewed by senior leaders. I am CERTAIN no one in the C-o-C is submitting optional warplans for strikes against Iranian targets without being asked for it, and I am certain Sullivan and Co. are not asking for it.
On another note, I think you have touched on an issue that affects a great deal of our national strategic issues lately, and that is the tendency by many pundits to push strawman extreme arguments to delegitimize opposition, leading to the conservative movements sudden embrace of 'peace at any price' while the Neocons push for the occupation and pacification of Tehran.
I 100% agree we should not be going feet dry in Iran, not with ground forces, not with manned aviation.
But again, every single Iranian owned or flagged vessel in the world could be a new environmentally friendly artificial reef by late tomorrow if the national leadership had the huevos to get it done.
This regime is too far up its hole that even with a plexiglass belly button it wouldn't be able to observe events. The response to being attacked should be to respond with overwhelming force, not "proportionality." We do not seem to have any sort of operations plan in the region, and likely won't until another butt rests in the Oval Office, and I'm not sure we'll even have something then. The regime will do nothing constructive to retaliate, and we seem to be quickly losing the means to do so. At best, I expect some sort of media fetish response where we blow a hole in some sand and clap each other on the back for what bad-arses we are.
Yea. I’m over “proportionality”. It’s been drilled into every CO and TAO by the lawfare zealots for the last decades. Sometimes a Lion needs to rip the shit out of the hyena to remind everyone including himself that he is a fucking Lion…
and before they tree him
Completely agree!
Indeed.
https://youtu.be/a5RUbAP3xlQ
Make America Scary Again.
Yup...im on board!!!
Proportional and response are two words that should never be in the same sentence again when it comes to our policies or actions...!!!
A proportional response should be that which to the maximum extent possible ends the conflict in question.
Id go a lil further... Id like to see responses that not only end the immediate problem, but are noticed internationally, and give other bad actors pause- and make them weigh and reconsider their plans. Responses worth doing should not only solve a problem, but deter the next one.
We spend /waste a lot of money on forward deployments and silly things like FONOPS. I get the idea, but does any of that truly create deterrence? I dont think so. I think only the properly applied use of a lil overkill does that.
"Let them hate us, so long as they fear us"
Never underestimate how prepared they are to spin and obfuscate
"Elections have consequences, and we are at the mercy of those appointed by those we elect."
You mean stolen elections have consequences.
Pete: Right on. Plus, the US should not be there, because our "leaders" are too stupid to deal with the consequences.
1000 percent