The WaPo reported yesterday what we all already knew: the damage to US bases in the Gulf region is more extensive than the Trump admin admits to.
-
The WaPo reported yesterday what we all already knew: the damage to US bases in the Gulf region is more extensive than the Trump admin admits to.
I didn't read the original article because Bezos's rag won't let me read for free without creating an account.
However, in reports on the WaPo report, I saw a quote from it by one of the image analysts.
-
The WaPo reported yesterday what we all already knew: the damage to US bases in the Gulf region is more extensive than the Trump admin admits to.
I didn't read the original article because Bezos's rag won't let me read for free without creating an account.
However, in reports on the WaPo report, I saw a quote from it by one of the image analysts.
>“The Iranians have deliberately targeted accommodation buildings across multiple sites with the intent to inflict mass casualties,” image analyst William Goodhind told the Post. “It is not just equipment, fuel storage and air base infrastructure under fire, but also soft targets, such as gyms, food halls and accommodation.”
This is the part of the WaPo reporting I don't believe.
I don't buy that the main reason for targeting common areas as well as "infrastructure" was mass casualties.
-
>“The Iranians have deliberately targeted accommodation buildings across multiple sites with the intent to inflict mass casualties,” image analyst William Goodhind told the Post. “It is not just equipment, fuel storage and air base infrastructure under fire, but also soft targets, such as gyms, food halls and accommodation.”
This is the part of the WaPo reporting I don't believe.
I don't buy that the main reason for targeting common areas as well as "infrastructure" was mass casualties.
One of the reasons I don't buy it is that there weren't mass casualties. Quite a few people were injured, but not many killed. I'm not buying that the IR was going for the greatest lethality. I still believe that they were trying to render these places non-functional.
I think that's what is STILL not being talked about, even when the media are literally reporting on the fact that the damage is much more extensive than initially acknowledged.
-
One of the reasons I don't buy it is that there weren't mass casualties. Quite a few people were injured, but not many killed. I'm not buying that the IR was going for the greatest lethality. I still believe that they were trying to render these places non-functional.
I think that's what is STILL not being talked about, even when the media are literally reporting on the fact that the damage is much more extensive than initially acknowledged.
Everything on a US military base is infrastructure, even the McDonald's. This is where they house, feed, & placate their personnel.
Spouse says stopping at the 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain was such a relief because it was like stepping into a mini-America. It felt like home, & that was part of its purpose.
This quote makes it sound like the only thing on a military base an enemy could actually want to destroy is the stuff with the most direct "military" function. That's just fucking silly.
-
Everything on a US military base is infrastructure, even the McDonald's. This is where they house, feed, & placate their personnel.
Spouse says stopping at the 5th Fleet HQ in Bahrain was such a relief because it was like stepping into a mini-America. It felt like home, & that was part of its purpose.
This quote makes it sound like the only thing on a military base an enemy could actually want to destroy is the stuff with the most direct "military" function. That's just fucking silly.
Here's the fucking deal: wars aren't won by killing the largest number of people. If the US military didn't fucking learn that in Vietnam, then I guess they are never going to learn it, but it seems to me that the IR—under an existential threat—is fighting strategically to win & that it's a fucking mistake to assume that their goal is to kill the most Americans they can.
-
Here's the fucking deal: wars aren't won by killing the largest number of people. If the US military didn't fucking learn that in Vietnam, then I guess they are never going to learn it, but it seems to me that the IR—under an existential threat—is fighting strategically to win & that it's a fucking mistake to assume that their goal is to kill the most Americans they can.
For Iran, destroying US military infrastructure has a lot more fucking value than taking lives, but they're still not talking about that, even when they are reporting on the damage done.
They aren't talking about what the damage means.
-
For Iran, destroying US military infrastructure has a lot more fucking value than taking lives, but they're still not talking about that, even when they are reporting on the damage done.
They aren't talking about what the damage means.
I *almost* want to read the full Washington Post story, so I can look at what isn't said & what questionable things are implied, but I don't want it enough to create an account for the Bezos shit paper.
This shit is cover-up too. This is still minimizing the damage to US military capabilities. It's just doing so with a little lip-service to reality.
-
Here's the fucking deal: wars aren't won by killing the largest number of people. If the US military didn't fucking learn that in Vietnam, then I guess they are never going to learn it, but it seems to me that the IR—under an existential threat—is fighting strategically to win & that it's a fucking mistake to assume that their goal is to kill the most Americans they can.
Afghanistan Vet Narrator: The US military did not, in fact, fucking learn that in Vietnam.
-
@Thebratdragon
It is so WILD to talk like "I can't believe they would try to kill people on this military base while we are trying to destroy their country! Monsters!"Just goes to show which people are considered people, doesn't it?
Little Iranian girls & their teachers? Valid targets. Iranian Universities? Valid targets. The mess hall of a US military base? HOW DARE YOU?
-
One of the reasons I don't buy it is that there weren't mass casualties. Quite a few people were injured, but not many killed. I'm not buying that the IR was going for the greatest lethality. I still believe that they were trying to render these places non-functional.
I think that's what is STILL not being talked about, even when the media are literally reporting on the fact that the damage is much more extensive than initially acknowledged.
@artemis Yeah, if your opponent has no barracks, it’s harder for them to staff up.
-
@rubixhelix
Thank you much! -
Here's the fucking deal: wars aren't won by killing the largest number of people. If the US military didn't fucking learn that in Vietnam, then I guess they are never going to learn it, but it seems to me that the IR—under an existential threat—is fighting strategically to win & that it's a fucking mistake to assume that their goal is to kill the most Americans they can.
@artemis I saw a documentary once about the 1965 battle of la Drang, which was the first major US/Vietnamese conflict in Vietnam. After several days of intense fighting, there were roughly 7 Vietnamese soldiers killed for every American soldier.
Both sides looked at these numbers and said, “We can win this war.” One of them was right.
-
An inconsistency in the narrative:
>“The Iranian attacks were precise. There are no random craters indicating misses,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine Corps colonel
This does not align with the claim that the IR intended to inflict mass casualties. If they were hitting their targets with a high degree of accuracy AND they were selecting their targets for maximum lethality, you would expect more deaths.
I'd be quite interested to know the order in which some of these strikes occurred, given that they took place over a couple weeks.
Did they immediately target the important tactical equipment like radar & satellite installations & then hit barracks & other targets later?
WaPo says that they reviewed satellite images from the war’s start through April 14, so you'd think they might be able to provide a timeline, but no.
-
I'd be quite interested to know the order in which some of these strikes occurred, given that they took place over a couple weeks.
Did they immediately target the important tactical equipment like radar & satellite installations & then hit barracks & other targets later?
WaPo says that they reviewed satellite images from the war’s start through April 14, so you'd think they might be able to provide a timeline, but no.
One of the reasons the IR may not consider inflicting mass casualties on US Forces a good idea is that Americans tend to start to see red when they feel like "the troops" have been harmed en masse.
I don't believe "maximum lethality" is an advantage for them when their diplomatic situation in most of the world is so shaky, & I just don't see evidence that they were trying to do that.
-
I *almost* want to read the full Washington Post story, so I can look at what isn't said & what questionable things are implied, but I don't want it enough to create an account for the Bezos shit paper.
This shit is cover-up too. This is still minimizing the damage to US military capabilities. It's just doing so with a little lip-service to reality.
An inconsistency in the narrative:
>“The Iranian attacks were precise. There are no random craters indicating misses,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine Corps colonel
This does not align with the claim that the IR intended to inflict mass casualties. If they were hitting their targets with a high degree of accuracy AND they were selecting their targets for maximum lethality, you would expect more deaths.
-
One of the reasons the IR may not consider inflicting mass casualties on US Forces a good idea is that Americans tend to start to see red when they feel like "the troops" have been harmed en masse.
I don't believe "maximum lethality" is an advantage for them when their diplomatic situation in most of the world is so shaky, & I just don't see evidence that they were trying to do that.
Yes, Americans are... quite something with their attitude towards the military.
"no, you're not supposed to shoot BACK at us!"
-
Yes, Americans are... quite something with their attitude towards the military.
"no, you're not supposed to shoot BACK at us!"
I mean... when USA got its ass handed back to it in Vietnam, Americans to this day frame the war not as a tragedy for you know... Vietnamese people, but as a nightmare for American troops.
Even less war-loving Americans seem to reflexively do that.
(and don't get me started on "thank you for your service" which is basically a prayer to the demigod that the US soldier is, LOL)
Like... literally nobody invited Americans there.
OK, I'm done.
-
One of the reasons the IR may not consider inflicting mass casualties on US Forces a good idea is that Americans tend to start to see red when they feel like "the troops" have been harmed en masse.
I don't believe "maximum lethality" is an advantage for them when their diplomatic situation in most of the world is so shaky, & I just don't see evidence that they were trying to do that.
@artemis If there’s one thing the IR understands it’s the importance of logistics, since that’s why the SoH is globally important in the first place. Like why target troops directly when it’s so much easier to just cut off their food supply and wait?
-
I mean... when USA got its ass handed back to it in Vietnam, Americans to this day frame the war not as a tragedy for you know... Vietnamese people, but as a nightmare for American troops.
Even less war-loving Americans seem to reflexively do that.
(and don't get me started on "thank you for your service" which is basically a prayer to the demigod that the US soldier is, LOL)
Like... literally nobody invited Americans there.
OK, I'm done.
@oddtail
Yeah, this is a disturbing reality. We worship our military (I mean, I have opted out from said worship, but culturally it is an opt-OUT not an opt-in).US culture is both violent & entitled. It's exactly the attitude that the oppressor-class needs people to have in a genocidal settler-colonial State. It's no wonder some US folks do feel such an affinity for Israeli Zionists. It is easy to recognize the same violent entitlement that we think is inherent to being "the good guys."
-
Afghanistan Vet Narrator: The US military did not, in fact, fucking learn that in Vietnam.
OK, a few more nuanced thoughts on this.
First, we had doctrine and studies and manuals that made it very clear that the goal was to remove the enemy's ability to fight. The counterinsurgency manual was actually really clear about this. I don't think many people below the rank of lieutenant colonel read it.
It wasn't the kind of war we wanted to fight, so we mostly didn't.
