Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning. People need to have some patience.
What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Military planners foreseeing things doesn't mean much if their commander-in-chief ignores them and substitutes his own uneducated, unplanned feelings for their analysis.
> What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied
The problem is that what they are doing has resulted in failure to keep the strait open. Whether they learned the wrong thing, or applied the wrong lessons, or did not learn anything at all, is an exercise left to the reader.
Has anyone ever claimed that wars don't involve mistakes. That wars are not hell, that wars are somehow a good phenomenon associated with the human species? But has anyone not naive argued that wars are not sometimes necessary to achieve objectives?
I genuinely wonder what point you have here other than to remind us of these fundamental human truths. And if so thank you. But I would ask you what would you be doing if you were making the policy decision?
How about not starting a war? Especially as a sudden attack during negotiations? With a country that has been historically bending backwards to find some kind of diplomatic solution?
And since when murdering the leaders repeatedly is a valid war strategy?
Not even mentioning that Chamenei was killed together with a daughter, son in law and a grandson. But who cares about accidental casualties, right? Just one more kid.
> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.
Sorry, what's the implication here? That no one else could've considered this all-but-inevitable conflict (inevitable given Republican geopolitical strategy) prior to yesterday? That some people can plan for things but everyone else is a neophyte because of... reasons? I don't understand how something can be "comprehensively planned" in your words, but also no one can possibly have an expertise because the conflict is too new. Which is it?
Wow, seeing tech manager talk in war context is really something. Finding new and innovative way to kill millions of civilians everyday. I suppose there are real people who do actually do this.
> absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning
[citation needed]
I don’t doubt there was a plan written up, they have plans for all kinds of scenarios. But we have no idea what that plan says. It could well say “avoid doing this if at all possible because of the enormous downsides”. It could also say “the only resolution is a ground invasion that will result in tremendous loss of life”.
The military are not magicians, they cannot make a get out of jail free plan for any given scenario. They can assess positives and negatives and prepare a report for civilian leaders. Who may then ignore it entirely.
Comprehensive military planning made it clear that a war with Iran was a bad idea. Trump just ignored advice and listened to Bibi.
Control of the SoH and the BaM requires seizing and holding large areas of inhospitable terrain, with long supply lines and complex human terrain, in contest with an adversary armed with masses of cheap but effective drones. A contested landing to take Bandar Abbas and Qeshm will cost thousands of lives and tens of billions in assets, then you have to hold it for decades while trying to topple a neighbouring regime of religious fanatics.
If you mean "absolutely foreseen" like "we knew this was a really really bad idea yet Trump still let himself get bamboozled by Netanyahu and now he doesn't know what do", sure, we were all absolutely aware that these were going to be the consequences.
Minesweepers require comprehensive dominance of the littoral region with total suppression of firepower from the enemy before they can be applied. We are in the suppression phase before those assets can be brought into the region
How did the plan to eliminate littoral defenses and avoid or eliminate mining, before it disrupted shipping, go?
What's that? Some of the new Littoral Combat Ships, infamous for falling apart and needing frequent repairs, have been moved from their assigned middle eastern stations to an entirely different theater for maintenance because the CiC started a war that made their middle eastern ports unsafe [2]? Oh, those were specifically ones configured for minesweeping [2]? Great planning.
Here's some reading about how the head of the entire armed forces failed to plan for this:
> Before the U.S. went to war, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told President Trump that an American attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. [0]
> but Trump’s preference of leaning on a tight circle of close advisers in his national security decision making had the effect of sidelining interagency debate over the potential economic fallout if Iran were to respond to US-Israeli strikes by closing the strait. [1]
> He told his team that Tehran would likely capitulate before closing the strait—and even if Iran tried, the U.S. military could handle it. [0]
> “Planning around preventing this exact scenario — impossible as it has long seemed — has been a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades,” a former US official who served in Republican and Democratic administrations said. “I’m dumbfounded.” [1]
What's clear is it the way this is being executed is a complete reboot of how prior Middle East conflicts were executed which suggests major ownership of prior problems and learnings applied