I’m no military expert by any means but US appears to be obsessed with destroying some super important target to win, like they did with killing Iran leaders only to find out that new leader replace the perished.
The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses.
Iran on the other hand, just like with their super important leaders lost all its “super weapons” like destroyers and the drone ships and yet again brought USA to its knees.
Maybe USA has more fundamental problems, not just drones. Maybe the problem is the obsession of wonderweapons for destroying wondertargets.
It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
Maybe the desire for concentration of power and seeing everything through that lens is the issue?
The US in general, and this administration in particular, has bought into US exceptionalism and action movie tropes. Just gotta blow up the death star with the leader on board and then the war is over. In reality there's a chain of command and line of succession, and military equipment all around the country.
If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine, because we've found ourselves in basically the same position as Russia is with Ukraine, but with no appetite to puts boots on the ground (not that we should, but it's the only way to "win").
> If they had been smart, they would have been learning from Ukraine
This administration seems to have neither the required skills nor an interest to learn from mistakes. Even if they were filled with smart people, they would still fail because of their lack of skill and learning attitude.
I suspect even that was unexpected bonus by them. They just stumbled upon a way to manipulate the market. I have hard time to see any action by them as being thoughtful.
Viewed independently, I think VZ, Ukraine, and Iran look like a hodgepodge of strange actions. There is a consistent view that joins them, namely as we approach the end of the davidson window, putting pressure on China and Russia via oil restrictions might help dissuade a larger war in the Pacific.
This is just a personal opinion, but lines up with Ukraine (burning refineries), EU (seizing sanctioned tankers FINALLY), VZ (cutting exports to China and moving to USA), and Iran (close the strait every so often). The unifying thread seems to be applying consistent pressure around China.
The truth is that bombing campaigns alone have never been an effective way to end a conflict. All they do is strengthen resolve.
Even the most extreme case of the nuclear bombs in Japan - had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered (and even then it was after a multi-year bombing campaign that eviscerated every other city).
The only realistic scenario for regime change is boots on the ground. The Iran "experts" who suggested a bombing campaign were never serious people.
>...had Russia not also invaded from the North with 1.5 million troops, there's a chance they would not have surrendered
The Japanese had already moved all of their experienced troops from Manchuria before the Soviet invasion. They were maybe surprised that the USSR would break the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, but the defense of the home islands was their main concern at that point.
The Japanese knew the USSR was not a threat to the main islands as the Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. The Soviets had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan. The Soviets did have plans to possibly attack Hokkaido, but as the wikipedia entry says "...Historians have generally considered it unlikely that an invasion of Hokkaido would have succeeded. "
In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough:
>...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just the beginning. At the time of bombing of Nagasaki already a third nuclear weapon was been assembled.
There were plans to increase the A-bomb production rate. After November 1945 U.S. would produce a atomic bomb every 10 days. The production rate for year 1946 was planned to be 6 bombs every month.
Had they not, the carpet bombings would have continued - not just the fire bombing of Tokyo, another 71 cities had also been bombed flat. With H&N that made a total of 74 cities down and a list of targets for future bombing still ready to work through.
FWiW the HE+incendiaries bombings used more planes but were cheaper overall than (at that time) atomic weapons - and (at that time) caused much the same amount of damage, injury, and death.
Don't overlook the "the people of this foreign land are yearning to be free of their current rulers, and just need a little help from their neighborly U.S. armed forces" trope. I think there are plenty of people who actually believe it.
People seem to forget that Iranians were rioting in the streets in the weeks leading up to the US attacking. The Iranian government was shooting protestors and pulled the plug on the internet.
The US (well Israel) saw this as the stars aligning. Trump even called on Iranians early in the engagement to seize the opportunity.
But the ground swell didn't happen, and the US got played. Trump rolled a critical fail.
From the videos and analysis I have seen, it was Kurdish militia that was formenting the riots. The US and Israel have even admitted to arming them. They were burning and destroying infrastructure, fighting and killing legitimate protesters, and fighting governement forces. So it was a 2 way fight between the militia and government forces with innocient protesters in the middle. Not trying to cast blame or defend any side, but these protesters are not fighters or soldiers, they are kind of like gen-Z TikTokers. So to plan an entire war around this "event" is kind of crazy. But the US government doesn't care, they just needed to sell the justification and everyone bought it.
I guess it doesn't matter if the Iranian people want regime change in their country. Lots of people want lots of different things (plus a pony). It only matters what they do. And it doesn't appear that they want regime change enough to take the risks of making it happen. I suppose this is the hubris of polling.
A.) Would you be happy if the government changed? (85% approval)
B.) Are you willing to potentially sacrifice your life and the lives of your sons to change the government? (3% approval)
Its like 2 dogs fighting, the US wants to win a display of dominance and have the other dog concede defeat - but if instead the other dog is prepared to die, now its a fight to the death and in fights to the death usually both sides die, even if one is stronger. The mentality of "we will just punch them till they capitulate" shows the US mentality, they're not in an existential struggle and they aren't ready to face one.
The pentagon can’t stop gold plating requirements, but that’s not just a problem of this administration. We’re still feeling the effects of the self inflicted hollowing out of the defense industry at the end of the Cold War, every defense contractor has learned that the only sane way to survive financially is to put as many bells and whistles on to their contracts as they can safe in the knowledge that the one or two other companies bidding for the contracts will be doing the exact same thing and the pentagon has lost the institutional knowledge on how to purchase systems and get anything like a good deal.
> It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
One of the few exceptions was the Battlestar Galactica reboot, in which the entire chain of command was killed and the Agriculture Secretary ends up as the leader of the refugee humans.
Wow your take is that we need to just start mass killing off large swaths of "unimportant" people? This is wild. It's also been done before in Hanoi, and made a lot of people quite angry (and the others dead).
The US fails to learn the lessons of it's last... idk, every war since WWII. Leadership cites kill stats when it has nothing else to cite, but killing, while certainly an important part of war, is not the key to victory and that's why we keep losing. Actually winning wars requires controlling strategic points on the battlefield, both literally with armed combatants, and metaphorically by getting civilians to support you. The US fails at both. We show up with incredibly superior firepower, establish FOBs where we think we need, drive armored convoys to supply those FOBs but they take fire on every trip, have to look for and clear IEDs, what have you. There's no control apart from the FOBs themselves, and the enemy has easy run of all territory not being patrolled at that precise moment.
This is the same problem that doomed us in Vietnam, in Korea, in Iraq, and will doom us in Iran. It's also the same problem that fucked over South Africa and Rhodesia and seems to be a common problem for white supremacists, but that's just my editorializing.
In any case, showing up and killing shitloads of people and then leaving does not win wars, it just LOOKS kinda like it does if you have no idea how to win wars, and assures you promotions in your organization. As soon as your military leadership starts citing that instead of actual progress on the conflict and the objectives at hand, it's a safe bet they are on their way to loss via attrition.
And that's not the ONLY factor of course, our military is too expensive and relies too much on fancy tech as opposed to solid strategy, everything we use is hideously expensive so any losses we take tend to hit harder, etc. But I think this is the most important thing to cite when discussing America's inability to actually wage war in a way that does anything besides get service people killed and enrich the MIC.
First, despite the Millennium challenge being "debunked", it still played out in the same direction.
Second, and this is a big one, after the Church committee when the CIA was put under congressional oversight, a big majority of the clandestine work was put under Special Ops type groups, ie the Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc.
When we were in Afghanistan, we would do the "target the leader" game, but it was far more dark in reality. Since we were going against a distributed insurgent force, we would send the special ops guys to targets intelligence deemed important. There'd be an op tempo of 2-3 a week. Years passed, and we didn't make any headway, so the op tempo was increased.
A target would be chosen, and the operators sent out. They'd kill the target, and look for any papers/documentation with other names. If you were this guy's dentist, you could be caught up in this. Since a majority of the operators didn't speak the language, they had no context to the names. It was more like the metadata network of connections exposed by Snowden.
Since we needed more operations(2-3 a night instead of a week), we'd go after less and less important targets, tangentially related to another target. We effectively turned the special ops groups into clandestine death squads with nearly zero accountability.
In addition, we were supporting warlords in the area that were pro-poppy cultivation and anti-Taliban. We'd protect the poppy plants that would go on to supply a large majority of the world's Heroin supply.
Where is this going? Well the cynic in me says it's simply a scam. We spend more on fancy military hardware that allows us to kill more effectively while barely pushing the needle on our goals. The mass amount of death we drop on populations creates new generations of "terrorist/freedom fighters" who rightfully have a grudge against the US war machine.
The money spent doesn't move the needle materially, but it provides propaganda in the form of "look at our death machines, we have the most in the world", which is a double edged sword of "hoorah" at home and "don't fuck with the crazy guy holding the gun" outside of home. The expensive weapons taxpayers buy from defense contractors are too expensive and complicated to build in bulk, so we run out quickly the second we have an enemy that can shoot back with more than an AK.
We're still trying to fight the war of 2-3 wars ago. We also learned from Vietnam that by no means should the general public easily learn the reality of the war. That worked until recently when the victim of a proxy war was able to upload daily videos onto tiktok and break the decades long good will between the US and an unnamed vassal.
Anyway, tl;dr, the ole military industrial complex is still at it, lobbying our government to spend money we don't have on wars we cannot afford as a public works program that only excels in death, rather than public works in healthcare, infrastructure, science, etc.
The USA Military strategists are/were quite aware that Iran is not an easy target.
They knew already that Iran might not belly up just because their leadership gets killed. And they knew very well how Iran is fighting (in the mountains) and that they will close the strait of hormuz
Trump overruled it. He thought it was as easy as venezuela and he might have assumed that the civil unrest helps.
That's speculation. We were going to attack Iran regardless. My point was, the attack you are talking about was done _by_ Israel and was not part of the plan.
There is quite a good book on the various problems with the US Military, and its hegemony leading to losing the arms race in missiles, and its various industry problems by Andrei Martyanov - naturalized US citizen, former Soviet military officer. Loves America, hates what its turned into, and marvels at the delusion of our military. MIC bloat is discussed here, as well as our fake financialized economy - which is not an indicator of being able to win wars.
I have only read the first book, and it was nice and humbling experience to me as an American.
In practical terms, the US is more fascist and more authoritarian than most countries. There must be thousands of soldiers who know the war is illegal and that they are committing war crimes. Yet they persist because, the president said so. Thus, the strange presumption that other countries worship their leader in the same way. Thus, the strange presumption that by just replacing the leader they can profoundly transform any country.
HN has been compromised by propaganda bots that can't decide between "The US is a paper tiger that can't win anything" and "The US is bullying poor Iran". Only a fool would think the US can't win militarily. Here's how:
1. Flatten Kharg
2. Flatten a dozen roads critical to transportation infrastructure
3. Continue the blockade
4. Stonewall peace attempts
5. Wait 5-6 weeks and win
The Trump administration isn't doing that because they're trying to avoid another generation unconditionally hating the US again. Having enemies that blindly hate you is how you get into Russia's situation where even an outright victory will result in IRA-style Ukrainian terrorist groups.
I thought this at first, but I’m not sure at this point.
The republican establishment has slaughtered the more populist anti-war wing of the party in primaries across the country. The democratic establishment has begun to do the same against their populist candidates. Politicians go on TV and brag about how they’re going to be eating lobster when asked about the state of the economy on their constituents. Every election post I see in a state with a couple contentious ones coming up is filled to the brim with boomers explaining how they’ll always vote on party loyalty, to the point of completely ignoring any of a candidates positions or motives.
These are not the actions of groups who are concerned about upcoming elections.
The US can "win" for some definition of the word but at what cost to the US and the world in general? Would that really be a win or would it be a loss?
The same with the other stuff, they have super important radar and super important ships that need to be defended and a failure creates irreplaceable loses. Iran on the other hand, just like with their super important leaders lost all its “super weapons” like destroyers and the drone ships and yet again brought USA to its knees.
Maybe USA has more fundamental problems, not just drones. Maybe the problem is the obsession of wonderweapons for destroying wondertargets.
It is fascinating that there are so many movies revolving around the US president, as if he has some ability that no one has and you can’t simply elect a new one if the enemy gets him.
Maybe the desire for concentration of power and seeing everything through that lens is the issue?