In keeping with our readiness to slate pathetic Russian military & strategic performance in Ukraine, once again we must even-handedly slate the current US debacle.
Which started (as is widely commented) with a complete absence of anything that could honestly be described as a strategy - just large-scale deployment of powerful forces that may fairly be described as tactically accomplished. But (as, again, we all know) tactics without strategy is just empty waste of effort - and life.
And materiel! I'm not going to open a laundry list here, but take it from me, US losses of important kit have been very significant, betraying a complete and utter failure of US doctrinal development for the drone era.
By stark contrast, Iran has clearly been developing - and executing - very appropriate plans for making the very best of its conventionally much, much weaker hand. It's as impressive in its own way as Ukraine's efforts (- with equivalent lack of guarantees of ultimate success).
We may only hope that the risible, contemptuous (and contemptible) triumphalism of Hegseth & Trump doesn't prevent the US military & strategic community from quietly learning lessons seriously, thinking very hard, and doing the right things, urgently and in depth. Sadly, we know from the ridiculous UK aircraft carrier debacle (thanks, Gordon), when you've been set on to spend all your money on crazy WW2-type projects like that, and the new 'Trump Class Battleships", such mega-distractions seriously weigh on the ability to do anything else.
On the plus side: we do know that Ukraine has comprehensively figured out this very traditional asymmetric warfare problem, both in theory and in deeply impressive practice: Taiwan may yet have time (though not much) to do likewise: and even the UK + Europe might be positioned to do something intelligent.
But will we? One unhappy perspective on this might be that Miliband's (and other nations') NZ obsession is the new national distraction that hinders our efforts. Not a lot of time for this to be set on track. As Russian subs patrol our cables, pipelines and offshore energy facilities, the analogy with 1938 is very uncomfortable.
ND
17 comments:
Never mind, that nice Mr Brown bought us two toy aircraft carriers.
I don't see us doing anything until we are forced to by events - currently government doesn't want to do anything about benefits, no one is interested in tax raises, so we're screwed.
We're far enough away from zones for there to be a low chance of a direct military attack, so cyber and infrastructure attacks it is.
A serious enough - to the public anyway - attack, like prolonged loss of energy, would likely to light a fire, but until then?
(1) Build our own nukes independent of the US. (2) Sell much of our navy - but exempting submarines. (3) Sell much of our air force. Buy missiles and drones.
(4) Use what is left of our naval surface ships plus what is left of our army to enforce our immigration laws. (5) Pray - literally if you are Christian, metaphorically if you are atheist.
" the analogy with 1938 is very uncomfortable"
Only if you live in the Middle East and you pretend the Nazi-Soviet pact is alive and well. Syria, Libya, Iraq all wrecked and divided, Egypt and Jordan beaten/tamed/bribed - and Turkey (Poland?) is next on the list:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-892113
"The real question is whether Turkey is actively undermining US, NATO, and regional security interests. There is little doubt that Ankara is doing just that, and doing so more brazenly with the passage of time."
A couple of quotes from Col D Hackworth:-
If a policy is wrongheaded, feckless and corrupt, I take it personally and consider it a moral obligation to sound off and not shut up until it's fixed.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly. ~ David Hackworth.
Both of these quotes apply. The question is can Mr Netanyahu be squeezed back in his box or can the US + Israel + whoever can be strongarmed bash Iran into submission. The Trump Whitehouse discomfort points to the second option. Cue coalition of the 'willing'. Snag is we don't have much time for endless chewing the diplomatic fat.
Another quote:-
That's because international Islamic religious fanatics have the same goal as the Axis fascists - the destruction of our way of life.
TBH I had not seen Iran as destroying my life. They seemed quite happy playing at uranium science, praying a lot and being a minor nuisance providing employment for assorted TLAs. I wonder who the fanatics are here.
I suppose the greatest problem at home is the price of gin and potatoes and petrol. There may be some wishing to stir up trouble with blockades and a spot of rioting. We shall see how Starmer gets on. A long hot summer a comin in.
On UK military failures, apart from as ever fighting the last conflict, I understood the issue is that we can only operate as part of NATO and hence are useless as an independent force. (Admittedly not large enough, but you get the thrust of the argument.)
H
@jim on the "islamic fanatics" quoted, would tend to agree, I think there is more nuance needed. As far as I can see (Shia) Iran is not much an exporter of terrorism, more protecting it's own turf in the region, unlike the (Sunni) Gulf states especially Saudi and Qatar (with compliance and support of US / UK intelligence) who are happy to promote fundamentalism for short term political goals.
H
It was the USA that funded the Sunni terrorism in Afghanistan that provoked the invasion by the USSR. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
It was the USA that took a benign view of Roman Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland. It was the USA that funded Sunni terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Whether the USA funded any terror groups within Libya I don't know.
Did the USA fund Sunni terrorists among the Albanians in Kosovo? Dunno but it's the sort of thing they might have done. How about Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan?
Why would anyone sell their airforce? Enabling an opponent to attack at will. At any point. Any time. With little restriction seems a very poor strategic choice to make.
@anon H - I think you'll find Iran has cheerfully exported its activities somewhat globally.
From bombings in Argentina, to assassinations in Japan, via riddling Europe, Africa, and Asia, with various activities, deadly or otherwise.
The penguins of Antarctica have so far remained of little interest to them, everywhere else, not so much.
They never liked the Serbs as allies of Russia so it's not impossible. Cracks me up that Starmer has his picture taken with the new Syrian leader, a guy who's been photographed holding a severed head in each hand.
Funny, Blackburn is probably the most Shia town in the UK, and I don't recall many bombs going off. They do like their processions though... quite Lancastrian if at the wrong time.
Does anyone think a nuclear armed Iran is a good idea? After all the pontificating it is worth saying that this has probably been delayed. I for one think that this is a good thing. No one else was going to do anything so take your positives where you find them.
Charles in Somerset
Suppose we gave Iran a few dozen nuclear missiles. Something of a white elephant, expensive to feed and useless except for parades and some final scenario no one wants.
In the current state of technique we use mass drones to overwhelm Iron Dome and THAAD type defences. Only a few nukes need get through and Iran has a fairly poor missile defence system. Bad news for everyone. Even if Iran had nukes two years ago I doubt that would have held back the Israel/US campaign.
Some kind of crazy 'bring down the temple' scenario might get rid of two problems and create several dozen more - still with no oil flowing.
As expected the negotiations as publicly stated went nowhere. I doubt Donald is hurting much. And we must ask Donald nicely for some oil please.
Soon the problem gets serious - European summer holidays in the sun get cancelled, not so much for Americans. Cue screaming from the DM etc.
My guess is Donald/Netty will go for more pummelling of Iran. Cue more damage to water, electricity and oil supplies. Humans are cheap.
Can anyone explain the weird claim that the US has been attempting to clear mines from the Strait? One doesn't use a destroyer as a minesweeper, does one?
(OK, so the destroyers ran away anyway, but even then the claim is an obvious lie, isn't it?)
Their new minesweeping ships are very bad. Don’t work well. Very vulnerable. A UK cock- up level of procurement failure.
The new plan is using sea drones. Or helicopters. Or low level air drones.
Can’t imagine a destroyer would be a good platform to find mines. Almost anything else might be better. Why not use a clapped out hulk stuffed with cork? Unmanned or low crewed.
A destroyer could do it. But it is an expensive risk to take.
The US is 'failing' against asymmetric warfare in the fact that it fights with one hand tied behind its back. If it so chose it could obliterate Iran (with conventional weapons, not nukes) and there wouldn't be much left of it left. It only 'fails' because it chooses not to win in that manner. The West is expected to win wars by killing all the 'bad guys' by forensic strikes while avoiding all the civilians (quite a lot of whom probably aren't civilians at all) , and determine which is which from 30,000 feet up. While its opponents are allowed to behave as if there were no rules at all.
Post a Comment