you might be coming into this debate a little late...As I explained, or tried to, there is a planning sequence to military engagements...The military had not finished with the first part of the operation..you don't just do one segment part way and then move to another then back to the first..that's simply not how it's done for obvious reasons. In the planning order there is something called "concept of operations" which lays out the plans and the sequence. to take the strait would have required ground forces, and as you might recall, the Marines weren't there yet. Now if you want to criticize that the ground forces weren't there, remember, they didn't need to be there first, because the concept of operations didn't require them to be there.
To your second question, if I were part of the planning sequence I would have started pretty much most ground operations do...bomb/lob large shells from offshore ships into areas where we put ground troops. I would have gone after the IRGC ground troops with aviation to take out communication and ground command and control. Then put ground forces in the area where we know the Iranians are launching their missiles and drones. Now how close we were to engaging those capabilities I really have no idea. As to plans, the military has entire groups in the pentagon who do nothing but war planning and war gaming. I watched numerous interviews on numerous networks talking about both those plans and the gaming. There was total agreement that effective plans were in place. I was not part of the planning group, I was in R&D and acquisition during my Pentagon years. So, I'm not an expert on the other side.
On timing of the closure, again from interviews, the military expected strait closure to be an Iranian strategy. But coming back to the concept of operations, it wasn't the first thing to be accomplished.
why don't we wait and see what the agreement is before we draw our conclusions. I know I am. I hear different reports from different people, none of whom have seen the agreement. I'll be among those who criticize it if it's bad for us. But would have to admit he was right on Friday when he said the "war is almost over".
I didn't realize this was a debate. I thought you were the one with the knowledge of military strategy/tactics, the one with knowledge of our military capabilities. I was hoping you would share some of that knowledge. Sort of disappointing that you refuse.
Well, besides sharing the concept of a "concept of operations".
It's interesting that in your version of events, the concept of operations didn't require ground troops to be there. While also in your version of events, effective plans were in place, which again in your version would have required ground troops. Sort of tricky to reconcile.
Sort of like the idea that our military was in total control of everything, except the strait. The same strait that became critical Iranian leverage that they used to hamstring basically all of Trump's purported goals of the war.
Maybe the concept of operations should have had a higher priority on the strait? But what do I know? I'm not the expert in military strategy/tactics, but at least now I know who to ask about how R&D and acquisitions worked how many decades ago?
