Pentagon running out of ideas in Iran

[Dadar]

Susan Collins has a form on hot key if Pakistan needs it.

I have heard a comparison to Lucy in Charlie Brown

 

[Dadar]

You don't think we can totally wipe out Iran any time we want if they choose to start a war? This isn't 1936. We are a continent and ocean away from Iran. It's a noble thought but different circumstances.

I do not believe the unique terrain conditions and topography that exists in Iran was given much thought.

 

[Dadar]

But, have I told you about my beautiful ballroom?

 

[Riveting]

You don't think we can totally wipe out Iran any time we want if they choose to start a war? This isn't 1936. We are a continent and ocean away from Iran. It's a noble thought but different circumstances.

Of course we can, but the bigger issue is can we keep them from hitting us with nuclear missiles if they are allowed to get the capability.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

what do you see as the cost to win?

Destroying Kharg Island in a 10-minute bombing raid?

Define win. That has been an ever shifting goal. I don’t claim we have “lost”, but I also don’t see how we “win”. What does winning even mean in this context?

For me the best option is to just walk away. Let the countries actually dependent on Middle East oil figure out the rest of this. Do a Fordow style bombing run every now and again when Iran starts the centrifuges for enrichment. That was clearly effective.

 

[WDDT]

If you read that it sounds like a dude asking for fun ways to **** with them.


"Now Im going to shove the red dude up the old dude".

Fwiw if the Pentagon is actually running out of ideas it only means more bombs. When your tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails.

 

[MuscoHawk]

Can’t we assassinate their leaders and arm the rebels?

 

[GesterHawk]

Can’t we assassinate their leaders and arm the rebels?

That has worked so well for us in the past.

**CIA blushes and refuses to make eye contact**

 

[Riveting]

Define win. That has been an ever shifting goal. I don’t claim we have “lost”, but I also don’t see how we “win”. What does winning even mean in this context?

For me the best option is to just walk away. Let the countries actually dependent on Middle East oil figure out the rest of this. Do a Fordow style bombing run every now and again when Iran starts the centrifuges for enrichment. That was clearly effective.

I would consider that a win if it keeps Iran from developing nukes - but not as big a win as weakening the regime so much it is overthrown.

 

[JWolf74]

I would consider that a win if it keeps Iran from developing nukes - but not as big a win as weakening the regime so much it is overthrown.

We'll be greeted as liberators, right?

 

[Riveting]

We'll be greeted as liberators, right?

Not by the 30,000+ protesters they slaughtered in January.

 

[Ktrain1969]

When are those T shots coming?

Time for some berserker mode brainstorming.

Hotshue could help. He could tell the Iranians to sit in the corner until they learned history.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I would consider that a win if it keeps Iran from developing nukes - but not as big a win as weakening the regime so much it is overthrown.

Let’s go with your definition for now (I might disagree but it’s a quibble and not material for this discussion). By that definition we could win with some missiles and bombs every so often. This much larger campaign is wasteful no? I mean we destroyed their facilities a year ago annd Iran didn’t close the strait last year either. So under your definition we have spent FAR more money and lost precious brave Americans to achieve a worse outcome.

Whether we call it winning or losing don’t we have to take into account the nature of the expense, disruption and lives lost in the calculus as to whether it is strategically sound?

 

[GesterHawk]

Hotshue could help. He could tell the Iranians to sit in the corner until they learned history.

He'll have them riding horses and eating organic beef straight from the still mooing cow within a half an hour.

 

[Riveting]

Let’s go with your definition for now (I might disagree but it’s a quibble and not material for this discussion). By that definition we could win with some missiles and bombs every so often. This much larger campaign is wasteful no? I mean we destroyed their facilities a year ago annd Iran didn’t close the strait last year either. So under your definition we have spent FAR more money and lost precious brave Americans to achieve a worse outcome.

Whether we call it winning or losing don’t we have to take into account the nature of the expense, disruption and lives lost in the calculus as to whether it is strategically sound?

I certainly agree that we have to look at the costs/benefits.

However, the benefit of keeping the apocalyptic Iran Islamofacists from getting nukes is astronomical, far outweighing the costs in my view, such that we need to continue on and do it.

I am hoping for the large-scale strikes that Trump has been threatening.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

You don't think we can totally wipe out Iran any time we want if they choose to start a war? This isn't 1936. We are a continent and ocean away from Iran. It's a noble thought but different circumstances.

Do you think it's possible, and how?

Iran is a big old place that has been through quite a lot and still exists. What has changed?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Can’t we assassinate their leaders and arm the rebels?

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Misleading thread title is misleading.

They never had the first idea about Iran after they attacked. The thought was, "We blow sh.it up and everything works out".

After that didn't pan out...

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I certainly agree that we have to look at the costs/benefits.

However, the benefit of keeping the apocalyptic Iran Islamofacists from getting nukes is astronomical, far outweighing the costs in my view, such that we need to continue on and do it.

I am hoping for the large-scale strikes that Trump has been threatening.

And see I look and say we could have achieved the same nuclear prevention goal with a much smaller campaign à la Fordow in 2025. To me this whole thing is a waste and chances are Iran would not have closed the strait either.

If you actually care about fiscal conservatism you should want a much smaller mission.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

We'll be greeted as liberators, right?

Twice in less than 74 years!

 

[Finance85]

I do not believe the unique terrain conditions and topography that exists in Iran was given much thought.

Even with all the bombs and missiles it's not been a truly serious war. Had Iran actually started the war, I'm fairly certain the US would have taken a different approach. Again, a noble goal but very likely unnecessary in 2026. I'm sure Israel feels differently and Israel used us because Trump was willing.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

FWIW - millions surrendered after watching Deacon Hill play QB….

 

[McLovin32]

He'll have them riding horses and eating organic beef straight from the still mooing cow within a half an hour.

He's gonna be sooooooooooooo mad at you when he sees this.

 

[Riveting]

And see I look and say we could have achieved the same nuclear prevention goal with a much smaller campaign à la Fordow in 2025. To me this whole thing is a waste and chances are Iran would. Ot haves closed the strait either.

If you actually care about fiscal conservatism you should want a much smaller mission.

You are looking at it in hindsight.

When the war started, I favored crushing the regime so it could be overthrown. I still favor that. I would bet you would be glad if that happens and would likely say it was worth the costs.

 

[hopefultiger13]

One thing that Im perplexed about......

Trump appointed the head. Im sure that person brought in a staff of know-nothings as well.
Hegseth then started a round of firing the more Snr and competent people and promoting unqualified.
Now the know-nothings are looking around for ideas.

Do the next level down of the experts not know anything (that feels like a very shallow knowledge pool)? Have the cuts gone deeper than alluded to? Or are there ideas being floated that the appointees just don't like, so the are dismissing and then the experts have eventually run out of ideas?

While the anti-DEI crew absolutely deserves all the ridicule and embarrassment and blame, I do question the folks that were lifelong experts being stumped so quickly (possibly).

I certainly have no insite into the inner working of our Government and unlike most on here, I'm not a military expert. That being said, you can probably draw some conclusions about the Dept of War's actions since Trump has been elected. You touched on this, but it's a good idea to review the part of bringing in a staff of know-nothings.

Since Trump took office just over a year and a half ago:

Air Force General Charles "CQ" Brown Jr. was fired from his position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General James Slife was dismissed.
Air Force Lt. General Jeffrey Kruse, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was removed.

Army Chief of Staff General Randy George was asked to step down and take early retirement.
Commanding general of the Army's Transformation and Training Command General David Hodne was removed from his postition

Navy Secretary John Phelan was removed from his post.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti was removed from her post.
Adm Holsey, who led U.S. Southern Command was removed.
Adm Lacore who was chief of the Navy Reserve was removed
Adm Sands the head of Naval Special Warfare Command

Head of the NSA, General Timothy Haugh was ousted


That's a lot of leadership just GONE. And the thing is that these are political moves, there's no performance removals here. NOW, if you were a 2nd level guy and you saw all these top level guys dismissed for presumably speaking their minds and ideas, would YOU be giving that same advice, or would you be keeping your mouth shut.

Now I'm just going to throw something out there that's going to anger the followers of the greatest military leader and military mind of our time... DONALD TRUMP. Maybe, just MAYBE, a guy who's never served a day in the military or commanded troops actually DOES NOT know as much as the his Generals do. AND maybe just MAYBE a former Major in the National Guard who's our Sec of War doesn't know as much as the generals either. Is that too crazy an idea?

So following this crazy idea a little further, perhaps Trump and Hegseth had some bad ideas about the war with Iraq. Like maybe we bomb the crap out of Iran again, and they give up quickly and the US wins. And MAYBE some of those folks above that no longer have jobs pointed out that the Iran government doesn't answer to it's people and as religious fanatics aren't exactly rational or predictable. AND that you don't have to be that effective to close the straights. Just lauch a missle every few days and the folks that own oil tankers worth millions of dollars and carrying 100s of millions of dollars of oil wouldn't want to risk their investment on "You'll PROBABLY get through just fine."

So IMHO, you've got a bunch of folks that KNOW that if you speak up and it isn't what Trump and Hegseth want to hear, you WILL lose your job. That's what I think is going on.

 

[Anon1750875978]

All of this mess to take the spotlight off of Trump’s involvement with Jeffy Epstein.

Midterms gonna be great.

 

[hopefultiger13]

You don't think we can totally wipe out Iran any time we want if they choose to start a war? This isn't 1936. We are a continent and ocean away from Iran. It's a noble thought but different circumstances.

No question about it. We could hat up, and invade Iran with 200K+ troops and absolutely wipe out Iran. I SUSPECT that the Iranian Army is better than the Iraqi Army and were certainly better than the Afgan Army, but we'd would kick that *** all the way to Terhan. I'd say 100 Billion in costs and probaby 10K US troops lost (but maybe less). Then what? The same thing we did in Afganistan and the same thing we are doing in Iraq (which is hanging on by a thread btw)?

Which I think is the point of this thread. We shouldn't start shiit when we have no plan for the endgame (AGAIN).

 

[GesterHawk]

He's gonna be sooooooooooooo mad at you when he sees this.

I am pretty sure old Gramps has me on ignore because I hit to close to home about his kids not celebrating Father's Day with him.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

No question about it. We could hat up, and invade Iran with 200K+ troops and absolutely wipe out Iran. I SUSPECT that the Iranian Army is better than the Iraqi Army and were certainly better than the Afgan Army, but we'd would kick that *** all the way to Terhan. I'd say 100 Billion in costs and probaby 10K US troops lost (but maybe less). Then what? The same thing we did in Afganistan and the same thing we are doing in Iraq (which is hanging on by a thread btw)?

Which I think is the point of this thread. We shouldn't start shiit when we have no plan for the endgame (AGAIN).

I'm get a sense that sewing the seeds for the next generation of militants that exist only to cause pain to the US was the end game in all three situations.

 

[RockyMtNole]

You are looking at it in hindsight.

When the war started, I favored crushing the regime so it could be overthrown. I still favor that. I would bet you would be glad if that happens and would likely say it was worth the costs.

Support for this war is already down in the low 30s. A couple hundred US troops die the approval numbers will crater even further. Trump knows that.

 

[lucas80]

Maybe we can have a party with all the other middle east countries but not invite them?

Or, invite them, but don't give them the real address, and when they get all dressed up and show up we call them on their cell and laugh at them.

 

[hopefultiger13]

I'm get a sense that sewing the seeds for the next generation of militants that exist only to cause pain to the US was the end game in all three situations.

You are not wrong. Take that tomahawk that hit the girl's school in Iran and killed damn near 200 kids. I 100% think that was an accident on our part. I'd need a LOT of proof to make me think anyone did that on purpose. But the fact of the matter is that we DID THAT. And you can bet your *** that there are damn near 200 families that will hate the US for the rest of their lives.

 

[lucas80]

Send them RFK Jr? That's a long play as it would take a few years and decades for their health care system to collapse, and for common diseases that have been eradicated to stage a comeback.

 

[McLovin32]

Send them RFK Jr? That's a long play as it would take a few years and decades for their health care system to collapse, and for common diseases that have been eradicated to stage a comeback.

Speaking of him, he publicly stated earlier that he doesn't have a gag reflex

 

[Jerome Silberman]

You are not wrong. Take that tomahawk that hit the girl's school in Iran and killed damn near 200 kids. I 100% think that was an accident on our part. I'd need a LOT of proof to make me think anyone did that on purpose. But the fact of the matter is that we DID THAT. And you can bet your *** that there are damn near 200 families that will hate the US for the rest of their lives.

That's the thing, it's pretty hard to convince people that live in rubble and have had funerals for pieces of their children or parents that it was all just an oopsie that should be met with grace.

In the history of mankind it's pretty rare for a people to knuckle under to force and see the people destroying their homes as liberators. But it is common for idiots leading militaries to dehumanize and underestimate the resolve of people that look and live differently than themselves.

We'll have to see if this case breaks the mold, but I very much doubt it.

 

[hopefultiger13]

You are looking at it in hindsight.

When the war started, I favored crushing the regime so it could be overthrown. I still favor that. I would bet you would be glad if that happens and would likely say it was worth the costs.

First of all, I hate the Iran government. I'd love for them all to die badly.

That being said, I WAS NOT in favor of this war at all. Because the ONLY way you are going to overthrow this government is to put a ton of troops on the ground and push them out. And then what? Prop up a government we put in place for 20 years, then watch it fall down and the same people come back into power? Nope, we've been down this road more than once and it always ends the same way.

Not worth the cost. Most people can see this. And to be fair I think Trump sees that as well. Which makes his decision even more stupid. Trump was NEVER going to invade Iran. Not part of the plan. But you don't start shiit if you are not willing to finish it. And Iran KNOWS this now. So they open talks... drag their feet... agree to some shiit then break the deal immediately. Rinse and repeat while we spend $1 billion a day on a war that we don't have the political will to win.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Speaking of him, he publicly stated earlier that he doesn't have a gag reflex

Learned skill from when he was scoring smack on the streets?

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

You are looking at it in hindsight.

When the war started, I favored crushing the regime so it could be overthrown. I still favor that. I would bet you would be glad if that happens and would likely say it was worth the costs.

No I am not in favor of this war at all. A minimal strike to destroy nuclear facilities? No issue. But regime change? That requires troops on the ground to make it work and even then when we leave it will just be another Afghanistan.

I am surprised you forgot the lessons of the past 25 years so easily.

 

[GesterHawk]

You are not wrong. Take that tomahawk that hit the girl's school in Iran and killed damn near 200 kids. I 100% think that was an accident on our part. I'd need a LOT of proof to make me think anyone did that on purpose. But the fact of the matter is that we DID THAT. And you can bet your *** that there are damn near 200 families that will hate the US for the rest of their lives.

More than 200.

Imagine if Canada bombed a girl's school in Tennessee on accident, I am pretty sure the attitude of at least half of the US shift into hatred for the Canucks.

 

[pjhawk]

Yes, bring back the masterminds of what autopen called the extraordinary success of the Afg withdrawal.

Reminder that these MAGA Jackhammers howled (and many continue to howl) about Benghazi and the Afghan withdrawal for years and years and years, absolutely minor events compared to this Iran war.

You want to talk about incompetence and idiocy, the Iran War is a catastrophe, probably the biggest strategic error/miscalculation in the history of the country.