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.
-
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.
-
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.
It's likely that the attack last year also caused the IR to tighten up on information security. My guess would be that good military intel inside Iran got significantly harder to acquire after that attack.
It seems as though even those who told Trump the attack was a horrible idea did not have a full picture of Iran's capabilities. It wasn't recognizable at the time, but Trump's first big blunder in this military conflict may have happened almost a year ago at this point.
-
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
Just because they didn't do any real damage then doesn't mean they gained nothing from the exercise. Trump played his hand waaaaaay too early & may have given the IRGC a lot of useful information & good practice in the process.
-
It's likely that the attack last year also caused the IR to tighten up on information security. My guess would be that good military intel inside Iran got significantly harder to acquire after that attack.
It seems as though even those who told Trump the attack was a horrible idea did not have a full picture of Iran's capabilities. It wasn't recognizable at the time, but Trump's first big blunder in this military conflict may have happened almost a year ago at this point.
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
-
Just because they didn't do any real damage then doesn't mean they gained nothing from the exercise. Trump played his hand waaaaaay too early & may have given the IRGC a lot of useful information & good practice in the process.
About 9 months before they started this war these fuckers gave the IRGC a trial run.
️ -
To hit them & walk away & think that was that?
Are you KIDDING me?
Sure, all they did in response was a few warning missiles to let everyone know "we are not defenseless, & we know where to hit you." I saw the news describe those missiles as "symbolic" because of course they were shot down by US & Israeli air defense, but then again...was that a test to see the air defense in action & look for weakness? Was that practice?
@artemis Practice, and mapping future targets.
And sure enough, they started by blowing up most of our radar network with cheap drones and then started sending out the big bombs.
