> the Pentagon leadership didn't read that book before starting the Iran affair.
The current Pentagon leadership is the kind of people that buy thousands of books with public money that nobody will read (written by their friends).
- "Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card" is the only one from the list I have read.
- "This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History, by T. R. Fehrenbach" seems interesting. South Korea still seems very grateful to the USA and commemorates the USA (and the rest of allies) that helped them during the Korean war.
The Korean war is technically not over. I believe the most recent framework is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panmunjom_Declaration , but the recently-evicted South Korean president was actively trying to restart it for his own Trumpian reasons.
It's one of those things like the San Andreas fault. Just because nothing has happened for decades doesn't mean the risk has gone away.
>- "This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History, by T. R. Fehrenbach" seems interesting. South Korea still seems very grateful to the USA and commemorates the USA (and the rest of allies) that helped them during the Korean war.
For "easy reading"- viewing - on that war there are somewhat informative - in very coarse grain sense - movies that i watched recently:
The pentagon absolutely did not start the war. Misunderstanding how the military works is one of the more dangerous things a lazy citizen can (fail to) do.
Which you would know if you were reading the books on the lists West Point puts out
Which leadership are we talking? The US military has been clear enough that they thought an Iran invasion was infeasible for obvious reasons - it isn't like what actually happened surprised many people, the US never looked like it could take on Iran in a direct war on Iranian soil. It was so obvious not even the Bush administration tried, and the US was in a much stronger relative position back in the 2000s.
If we're talking the likes of Hegseth and Trump then we're all waiting for the inside gossip on exactly what mad assumptions they were making that led to this scheme looking acceptable. Maybe Trump is going senile too, maybe the Israelis managed to sell a story, maybe the US is being deceptive and it is some sort of anti-China attempt.
1) attack Iran, directly as well as in the neutral third country Lebanon;
2) Iran counterattacks, including at unrelated parties
3) US is forced to intervene on the Israeli/Gulf States side
This is also why any "deal" is of very questionable longevity unless it is meaningfully binding on Israel.
(Israel will claim, with some justification, that the October attacks were sponsored by Iran, as have a lot of the missiles against which Iron Dome was built)
This was already reported a month or so back. It also matched some of the early, unprepared, statements along the lines of “acting before they (israel) do.” And matches previous reporting along the lines of JCS/NSC giving “nuanced” advice which is easily interpreted as agreement or compliance.
Yeah, that reporting looks sketchy. A lot of the details are being leaked from inside the Trump administration and it is to their benefit to play up the idea that the US administration doesn't have any actual control over their own disastrous actions. Turns out their hands were forced and they've just been bamboozled by foreigners and they never wanted to do the thing they just enthusiastically did. Colour us all shocked.
It might be the case, reality is in favour of the Trump admin from time to time. But it could also be untrue. What type of crazy is "acting before they (israel) do" - the idea is wildly stupid, even stupider than starting the war in the first place. Literally all they achieved was the tactical "victory" of taking out everyone who could conceivably negotiate to end the fighting. No way a bunch of people on the US side didn't notice that.
I dont think those points are in conflict? I certainly read it as yet another example of centralization of power and advisors/advisees who are only interested in “yes.” I read the NSC/JSC/cabinet advise as the passive failure of directly answering what is asked, and not what is meant or needed. To wit, yes the US DoD can absolutely suppress an opfor and infrastructure. No one asked if there was a strategic outcome, and no opinion on that matter is proffered.
Edit: I know recall JCS is reported to have said something like “its bullshit” about the Israeli operational plan/end state. But subsequent discussion focused instead on “can we”, not “how” or “should.”
And the current civilian administration is doing a pretty thorough job of eliminating anyone who _would_ point out previous lessons learned around strategic outcomes, going in to conflict necessitating clear & achievable exit criteria, creeping escalation, conflating use of force with success, etc.
Theres a reason everyone talked about “adults in the room” last time and anyone inclined to those kind of thoughts, or voicing the associated opinions, is absent now. And personally Id say that amplifies culpability, nit diminishes it.
Seems to be missing a bunch of essential subjects, viz;
Warfare within the context of overall Statecraft, Integrated warfare, Information warfare, Asymmetric warfare, Grey-zone warfare, Psychology w.r.t. Propaganda/Reflexive control/Active measures, Behavioural game theory etc.
All the tactics/technology/manpower/training/stories/anecdotes are insufficient if one does not have an understanding of the overall strategic theory within which they operate.
"Winning" has many forms depending upon the context.
"The Arms of the Future: Technology and Close Combat in the Twenty-First Century"
somehow i feel that the Pentagon leadership didn't read that book before starting the Iran affair.
> the Pentagon leadership didn't read that book before starting the Iran affair.
The current Pentagon leadership is the kind of people that buy thousands of books with public money that nobody will read (written by their friends).
- "Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card" is the only one from the list I have read.
- "This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History, by T. R. Fehrenbach" seems interesting. South Korea still seems very grateful to the USA and commemorates the USA (and the rest of allies) that helped them during the Korean war.
The Korean war is technically not over. I believe the most recent framework is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panmunjom_Declaration , but the recently-evicted South Korean president was actively trying to restart it for his own Trumpian reasons.
It's one of those things like the San Andreas fault. Just because nothing has happened for decades doesn't mean the risk has gone away.
>- "This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History, by T. R. Fehrenbach" seems interesting. South Korea still seems very grateful to the USA and commemorates the USA (and the rest of allies) that helped them during the Korean war.
For "easy reading"- viewing - on that war there are somewhat informative - in very coarse grain sense - movies that i watched recently:
SK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Jangsari
China (with heavy propaganda angle of course and a big budget): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_at_Lake_Changjin
The pentagon absolutely did not start the war. Misunderstanding how the military works is one of the more dangerous things a lazy citizen can (fail to) do.
Which you would know if you were reading the books on the lists West Point puts out
could you please state the date and time and the actors of an event you consider as the starting event of the war.
Which leadership are we talking? The US military has been clear enough that they thought an Iran invasion was infeasible for obvious reasons - it isn't like what actually happened surprised many people, the US never looked like it could take on Iran in a direct war on Iranian soil. It was so obvious not even the Bush administration tried, and the US was in a much stronger relative position back in the 2000s.
If we're talking the likes of Hegseth and Trump then we're all waiting for the inside gossip on exactly what mad assumptions they were making that led to this scheme looking acceptable. Maybe Trump is going senile too, maybe the Israelis managed to sell a story, maybe the US is being deceptive and it is some sort of anti-China attempt.
> maybe the Israelis managed to sell a story
1) attack Iran, directly as well as in the neutral third country Lebanon;
2) Iran counterattacks, including at unrelated parties
3) US is forced to intervene on the Israeli/Gulf States side
This is also why any "deal" is of very questionable longevity unless it is meaningfully binding on Israel.
(Israel will claim, with some justification, that the October attacks were sponsored by Iran, as have a lot of the missiles against which Iron Dome was built)
> maybe the Israelis managed to sell a story
This was already reported a month or so back. It also matched some of the early, unprepared, statements along the lines of “acting before they (israel) do.” And matches previous reporting along the lines of JCS/NSC giving “nuanced” advice which is easily interpreted as agreement or compliance.
Yeah, that reporting looks sketchy. A lot of the details are being leaked from inside the Trump administration and it is to their benefit to play up the idea that the US administration doesn't have any actual control over their own disastrous actions. Turns out their hands were forced and they've just been bamboozled by foreigners and they never wanted to do the thing they just enthusiastically did. Colour us all shocked.
It might be the case, reality is in favour of the Trump admin from time to time. But it could also be untrue. What type of crazy is "acting before they (israel) do" - the idea is wildly stupid, even stupider than starting the war in the first place. Literally all they achieved was the tactical "victory" of taking out everyone who could conceivably negotiate to end the fighting. No way a bunch of people on the US side didn't notice that.
I dont think those points are in conflict? I certainly read it as yet another example of centralization of power and advisors/advisees who are only interested in “yes.” I read the NSC/JSC/cabinet advise as the passive failure of directly answering what is asked, and not what is meant or needed. To wit, yes the US DoD can absolutely suppress an opfor and infrastructure. No one asked if there was a strategic outcome, and no opinion on that matter is proffered.
Edit: I know recall JCS is reported to have said something like “its bullshit” about the Israeli operational plan/end state. But subsequent discussion focused instead on “can we”, not “how” or “should.”
And the current civilian administration is doing a pretty thorough job of eliminating anyone who _would_ point out previous lessons learned around strategic outcomes, going in to conflict necessitating clear & achievable exit criteria, creeping escalation, conflating use of force with success, etc.
Theres a reason everyone talked about “adults in the room” last time and anyone inclined to those kind of thoughts, or voicing the associated opinions, is absent now. And personally Id say that amplifies culpability, nit diminishes it.
Nor: https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-St...
Seems to be missing a bunch of essential subjects, viz;
Warfare within the context of overall Statecraft, Integrated warfare, Information warfare, Asymmetric warfare, Grey-zone warfare, Psychology w.r.t. Propaganda/Reflexive control/Active measures, Behavioural game theory etc.
All the tactics/technology/manpower/training/stories/anecdotes are insufficient if one does not have an understanding of the overall strategic theory within which they operate.
"Winning" has many forms depending upon the context.
PS: List of military strategies and concepts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strategies_an...
[flagged]
[dead]