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.
-
@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.
-
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 fwiw, there's an unpaywalled link of the full story here: https://archive.is/OcpgB. One striking detail is that WaPo had to rely on Iranian imagery, because western satellite operators have been complying with US "requests" not to release images of the warzone
-
@artemis fwiw, there's an unpaywalled link of the full story here: https://archive.is/OcpgB. One striking detail is that WaPo had to rely on Iranian imagery, because western satellite operators have been complying with US "requests" not to release images of the warzone
@artemis Which I can imagine is a pretty routine request where military action is ongoing, but it's also consistent with the US regime's determination to keep a tight control over the flow of information on what's actually going on
-
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.
Second--and maybe a counterargument--but the way to make Americans lose the will to fight often IS to kill a bunch of us. See: Beirut embassy bombing in 83, Somalia in 93 ("Black Hawk Down"), et al.
Our modern will to war is married to our ability to conduct it w/o blood cost. I think Iran is quite happy to hit at the soft support network behind the direct military effort, but if they're able to kill 300 at a stroke, we'll suddenly be having a different national conversation.
-
Second--and maybe a counterargument--but the way to make Americans lose the will to fight often IS to kill a bunch of us. See: Beirut embassy bombing in 83, Somalia in 93 ("Black Hawk Down"), et al.
Our modern will to war is married to our ability to conduct it w/o blood cost. I think Iran is quite happy to hit at the soft support network behind the direct military effort, but if they're able to kill 300 at a stroke, we'll suddenly be having a different national conversation.
When I was sitting in Ukraine in 2021 reading books about Vietnam (I had little mission and a lot of time), the parallels with Afghanistan (where I spent 2006) were screamingly obvious--just change the names and numbers.
And then Afghanistan collapsed that summer. As it was always going to eventually.
We don't learn. Institutional memory in the military is very short except with the senior leadership; everyone else gets out. And those leaders too often learned the wrong lessons.
-
One tragilarious part is that they are finally getting to fight a "regular" war, the kind the brass has always wanted, and they're still losing.
-
Second--and maybe a counterargument--but the way to make Americans lose the will to fight often IS to kill a bunch of us. See: Beirut embassy bombing in 83, Somalia in 93 ("Black Hawk Down"), et al.
Our modern will to war is married to our ability to conduct it w/o blood cost. I think Iran is quite happy to hit at the soft support network behind the direct military effort, but if they're able to kill 300 at a stroke, we'll suddenly be having a different national conversation.
@venya @artemis Only if they can kill hundreds in a way that can’t be hidden from view. One of the lessons the US military did learn from Vietnam is that the reality and horror of war being beamed nightly into people’s televisions destroyed any notion of popular support for the war. The media has been kept at arm’s length from every US military action since. And now the military industrial complex owns the media.
-
@venya @artemis Only if they can kill hundreds in a way that can’t be hidden from view. One of the lessons the US military did learn from Vietnam is that the reality and horror of war being beamed nightly into people’s televisions destroyed any notion of popular support for the war. The media has been kept at arm’s length from every US military action since. And now the military industrial complex owns the media.
I think that is perhaps overstating the case. The media was heavily embedded in both Iraq wars and Afghanistan. The coverage was pretty heavy for counter-ISIS in 2016-7 when I was there.
That said, the current regime is active about keeping the media effectively cut off or force fed.
-
According to this theory, the idea WAS to be exposed militarily, but not for long, & I think the fact that some of this shit was out in the fucking open supports that theory.
I do NOT however think the plan was (for instance) for the 5th Fleet HQ to be bombed out & become non-operational. The idea was that the "out of control" IR would attack them & they could immediately respond with maximum force.
I do not think they anticipated the sort of damage Iran could do either.
Frankly, I don't think the IR was formerly capable of this. That may perhaps have been true even as recently as last year.
There is reason to believe that the attacks in June 2025, spurred on rapid development & preparation for a major conflict with the US. It is something they have always known was in the cards, but the events of last year a) told them that further attack was imminent and b) gave them insight into how the airstrikes would be conducted.
-
Additionally
>[Experts] also pointed to structural challenges, including a shortfall of fortified shelters that could protect troops and equipment at key positions and likely targets.
My spouse, who was at one time stationed on a Navy ship sitting off the coast of Iran believes that the US plan for Iran has always been to give them some soft targets in hopes that Iran would start the aggression & then the US would respond with overwhelming force with the support of NATO.
According to this theory, the idea WAS to be exposed militarily, but not for long, & I think the fact that some of this shit was out in the fucking open supports that theory.
I do NOT however think the plan was (for instance) for the 5th Fleet HQ to be bombed out & become non-operational. The idea was that the "out of control" IR would attack them & they could immediately respond with maximum force.
I do not think they anticipated the sort of damage Iran could do either.
-
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.
Additionally
>[Experts] also pointed to structural challenges, including a shortfall of fortified shelters that could protect troops and equipment at key positions and likely targets.
My spouse, who was at one time stationed on a Navy ship sitting off the coast of Iran believes that the US plan for Iran has always been to give them some soft targets in hopes that Iran would start the aggression & then the US would respond with overwhelming force with the support of NATO.
