Kamala Harris was right.

[Limnor]

Ajax - are you now quite clear about the facts here? Do you agree that the short answer to your implied question is "Because the US simply does not have the military capacity to do that?"

And a second question: given that Trump knows all those facts (I mean, he is Commander in Chief), do you think he is justified in claiming that the US has basically won this war?

If you can answer those questions directly, you will have my respect, even if I don't agree with you. But if you don't, you will show yourself to be no more than a troll.

It’s hard to pin down “lost” if you’ve never defined what “win” looks like. You could say we “won” against the first set of ambiguous objectives while shifting to a new set of ambiguous objectives.

I’ve no doubt we could destroy Iran’s military capability, given enough lead time and force flow, though you’d have to accept risk in other theaters. It’s what follows that would be challenging, to put it lightly—the transition from “winning the war” to “winning the peace.” The past couple of decades should be sufficient to demonstrate those difficulties.

[Chap]

You could say we “won” against the first set of ambiguous objectives

Just remind me, please. When and by whom was that first set of objectives stated? And what were they?

I’ve no doubt we could destroy Iran’s military capability,

What, for you, would constitute destroying "Iran’s military capability?" Please answer in terms that actually make it clear what material and human resources currently constitute "Iran’s military capability," and what degree of damage to those material and human resources would justify an adversary in stating that they had been destroyed.

Kind of answers not allowed: "Iran would be unable to do X, Y, or Z." Kind of answers allowed: "X% of their missile launch sites and missile stocks would be destroyed."

[Doctor Steuss]

Unlike Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens, I want the US to be the dominant force in the world. I don't want a world where China and Russia control entire spheres of influence nor where the Huthis can block the strait of Hormuz. The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil. We should be taking Venezuela's oil as well to reimburse us for flooding our country with impoverished migrants. I believe that isolationism is bad for America and bad for the world.

Trump has repeatedly given China overwhelming global soft power opportunities, and massive trade advantages spanning back to his first term. Their global influence, and overall geopolitical favorability as viewed by other nations, has grown massively. One need only look at what happened in the last global poll to the US's standing, in relation to China's standing. Trump knocked the US down with Russia, and has positioned China to ultimately replace the United States in a decade (or less). About the only thing we have left is our military, because of the incompetence of Trump and his ilk, and a handful of drones have made our military look like a joke** under Trump and we've massively depleted some of our main capabilities.

I'll never understand why you like a guy who consistently does things that go against what you claim to want.

**Take a look at the various Iranian diplomatic X accounts, and the massive amount of "likes" they receive with their brutal takedowns of Trump, and making him and his supporters look like feckless micropeen bitches. I will forever be amazed at the ability of MAGA to be immune to embarrassment.

[Some Schmo]

I'll never understand why you like a guy who consistently does things that go against what you claim to want.

I can explain it. He lies for his lord (racism). The only time he doesn't lie is when a bit of his racism, bursting at the seams, leaks out.

For other MAGAtes, I can imagine it's more complicated than that, but not for ajax. He's a simpleton who thinks racism is the source of his own incompetence and failures in life. He's a whiney loser and a drain on American tax payers.

[Limnor]

Chap—

That’s part of my point. Different objectives have been stated by different officials at different times. Depending on who was speaking, the goal was either 1) destroy Iran’s nuclear program, or 2) end uranium enrichment, or 3) eliminate Iran’s ability to build a bomb, or 4) regime change, or 5) compel Iran back to some sort of negotiations—negotiations about “what” isn’t even defined.

It’s difficult to determine whether we’ve “won” when the definition of victory appears to shift over time.

I hope you don’t consider my points to be apologetic for the administration, because that wasn’t my intention. Rather I’m pointing out the political game of “moving goalposts.” Anyone can say they “won” if you’ve never defined what “won” looks like. The ambiguity seems to be part of the design.

[Limnor]

What, for you, would constitute destroying "Iran’s military capability?" Please answer in terms that actually make it clear what material and human resources currently constitute "Iran’s military capability," and what degree of damage to those material and human resources would justify an adversary in stating that they had been destroyed.

Kind of answers not allowed: "Iran would be unable to do X, Y, or Z." Kind of answers allowed: "X% of their missile launch sites and missile stocks would be destroyed."

Well, first you’d have to have an end state in mind. I’d probably go with something like “Iran’s military is no longer capable of threatening its neighbors.”

From there you have to understand Iran’s military capability—particularly, in line with the end state—what stand-off, long range systems do they have that can threaten their neighbors.

In our scenario, let’s say they have 600 medium range ballistic missiles that can range Israel or our gulf state partners. I’d call this the primary line of effort. We would need to eliminate them so they don’t shoot at oil fields in the gulf or population centers.

To make it measurable, let’s say we need to eliminate 80-90% of those shooters. Probably going to need something like a 4-1 ratio of TLAM or other stand off weapons (JASSM) to do that. So about 2400 weapons.

Going to need to reduce Irans ability to shoot down our long range stand off TLAM or JASSM. Let’s say they have 200 SAMs. 4-1 ratio again puts us at an additional 800 stand off weapons. We don’t need to destroy all of those at once because we could just create corridors. So maybe 25 SAMs and 120 stand off weapons.

That’s phase 1. When we achieve air superiority and defeat their ballistic missiles—let’s say with six month buildup of weapons that takes us an additional month of fires. So in about 8 months from now, we can move to phase 2, ground invasion.

So for phase 1 you need something like 2500 stand off weapons and 8 months.

This plan, or something like it, is probably already on the shelf.

You may not believe me, but I do this for a living.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dump is spiraling. 45 posts in an hour.

He is insane.

[Philo Sofee]

Dump is spiraling. 45 posts in an hour.

He is insane.

S***, that ain't nuthin! In my insane Mopologetics days I was rattling off over 100 messages/day. True story!

[Some Schmo]

S***, that ain't nuthin! In my insane Mopologetics days I was rattling off over 100 messages/day. True story!

I'm only speculating, but you weren't responsible for one of the most powerful countries on earth at the time, were you?

I'm not making excuses for you, but I'm guessing there weren't as many people relying on you at the time. Not in the hundreds of millions, right?

As I write this, it occurs to me that I wish it were you (or just about anyone else) in his place. Never in my lifetime have I had less confidence in a purported leader of a country, let alone the one in which I lived. What could be worse than a corrupt, selfish, immature moron as the leader of a country?

The only thing worse is that enough Americans thought he was the best choice. That's what's truly depressing. The stupidity of Americans.

[Chap]

That’s phase 1. When we achieve air superiority and defeat their ballistic missiles—let’s say with six month buildup of weapons that takes us an additional month of fires. So in about 8 months from now, we can move to phase 2, ground invasion.

So ... while you are doing phase 1, the Straits of Hormuz remain blocked for eight months, with all the consequences we know about. You've got a plan to deal with those consequences?

And that phase 2, ground invasion. Does the US currently have the battle-ready troops and other resources necessary to mount a successful ground invasion of Iran, and to continue the occupation of the invaded areas in at least the medium term thereafter?

And will that ground invasion ensure that the Hormuz blockage is finally lifted? Remember, nobody is going to send a high-value vessel through there while there is still a chance that somebody along the precipitous and difficult to access coastline has a cruise missile that they can bring out of a cave and launch at a passing ship.