I think we're getting hung up on the word "objective". You seem to be saying that seizing control of the strait is something that we should have done..it should have been an objective..in the same manner that people ask what was the objective of this invasion of Iran...seize the uranium, regime change, control the strait...we should have known that up front...Ok I can't argue with that thinking. Those are political objectives.I guess I am saying I am not sure what objective we have been trying to achieve that will be achieved by any scenario that leaves Iran their largest piece of leverage in any negotiation.
What objectives does it appear we have successfully completed? At a macro level, not a "we wanted to blow up x, y, and z and we did".
I'm looking at objective in the military sense.....there are many many objectives in a military conflict. and these are generated in order to achieve the political ones....but one step at a time...The military will have an overall strategy with priorities...take out the air defense radar..take out the air defenses..take out the command structure, take out communications, take out the ability to reinforce munitions..etc etc...then take control of the strait..
I suggested you read the 5 paragraph operational order...you'd get one every day/mission. The Objective today might be the command and control...and the end of the day after the BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) the objective in tomorrow's mission might be go back and reattach to completely destroy the C&C....things go in some sequence.
That doesn't mean that there is no plan to take control of the strait...but first things first. We have to take out as much of the defenses first., I listed some of those in an earlier post....and that would have been listed in a operations order...,. And, IMO, that overall military plan was put on hold before the tack the strait mission by the ceasefire.
Does this help?
