Iran’s Response: Will Destroy American Terrorist Force
U.S. Navy photograph of Iranian frigate, Sahand, burning. (US NAVY)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps commander had some tough words for the United States. President Trump ordered the Navy to shoot down threatening Iranian fast patrol boats. In response, he argued that Iran would destroy the “American terrorist force”.
Additionally, Iran’s foreign minister advised President Trump to tend to coronavirus affected military members. He argued that this should be the focus instead of issuing threats.
From Fox News:
“The US military is hit by over 5000 #covid19 infections. @realdonaldtrump should attend to their needs, not engage in threats cheered on by Saddam’s terrorists,” Zarif tweeted. “Also, US forces have no business 7,000 miles away from home, provoking our sailors off our OWN Persian Gulf shores.”
Zarif was referring to Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president who before being overthrown by the United States had gone to war with Iran. The tweet was accompanied by a map that noted the U.S. is thousands of miles away from the Persian Gulf, whereas the Persian Gulf makes up most of Iran’s shoreline.
But the Persian Gulf also includes large amounts of international waters and is an important trade route that the United States has made an effort to protect — particularly the Strait of Hormuz, which is the gateway to the Persian Gulf. Iran last summer seized a foreign oil tanker in the strait and engaged in other actions that led the U.S. to attempt to form an international coalition to protect the waterway from Iranian aggression.
In the recent encounter that angered Trump, 11 Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels made aggressive maneuvers near American ships, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui’s, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said.
Will the Iranians test President Trump’s “threats”? Fox News has more information here.
Category: Iran
Let them pass in front of a Burke-class doing 25 knot plus and PT 109 on their asses…saves on bullets and let the screws turn what’s left of the crew into chum. Its the ecologically sound way to dispose of biodegradable garbage.
“Turn what’s left of the crew into chum”.
SPEW ALERT PLEASE!
He is just baiting us.
Bring it on, fucker.
As the pack of hyenas continue to harass the Lion of the Free World, maybe the Lion should disregard the kill he is protecting from them and turn upon his tormentors one at a time. Strike back with all of the rage and fury that we are capable of. The domestic enemies of our Republic have tried for over 3 years to bring down Trump and they have failed. So now they are hoping that their foreign benefactors can succeed. Phuque ’em. Pull our assets back out of range and “nuke ’em from orbit. It’s the only way.”
My sister asked me back when the WW3 thing was hot what a war might be like….
I told her that if the USA decided to invade Iran, there wasn’t a damn thing Iran could do about it.
What happens after that….well, we do have a history of giving victory away….
How did the US invasion of Iraq turn out?
Having been in Iraq multiple times in both wars, I would say it will go down in history as one of the worst national security decisions ever- we’re talking Napoleon and Hitler going into Russia times at least two.
The Jacksonian “we crushed you” worked very well. Four to one odds, the wrong way, and we annihilated their forces.
The Proggy “nation building” was the usual disaster.
Yes, that was Proggy bullshit.
Similar pattern in Afghanistan.
Lose that Proggy virus and we do quite well. Progressivism is cultural AIDS.
“we annihilated their forces.”
Sure did. So what? Why are we still there? War, as we spend millions of dollars each year trying to teach to military and civilian senior officers, is not just military combat.
Seems kind of pointless now. Instead of removing a problem we created a worse problem. That doesn’t sound like a great bargain to me.
Then you would be wrong.
The invasion of Iraq was one of the most stunning land war victories in the history of warfare.
But, your inability to see through the media story telling here is showing again, because the transition period was also a basic success.
What will “go down in history” is that the US media manufactured a crisis where none existed and infant intellects spooned it up liked gerber banana baby food.
I was also in Iraq (and Kuwait, SA, AFG, K2) and spent more than a couple years on the ground at multiple echelons spanning the period 1990 to 2010 and I can tell you that almost nothing that appears in the American media is factual and if you rely upon them, you are part of the problem.
The media did the same thing during the Civil War. We remember what actually happened during the Civil War, not what the media back then pedaled. 😀 even with Vietnam, facts are increasingly coming out indicating our military victory there on the battlefield. More are starting to learn the truth about that war.
I was there too, hero, at every level from Infantry Battalion to MNF-I.
I trained Iraqis, I killed Iraqis, and I even met a few terrorists along the way- mostly Shia militias like JAM, but a few AQI dudes as well.
I won’t claim in depth knowledge of other places, but I also served in Afghanistan, and did short stints in OEF-P and Horn of Africa. I am familiar with the problem set.
Now that we can judge the relative size of our members, can we have a serious discussion?
The US invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder. It doesn’t matter how well our troops performed or how many tactical victories they won. At the end of the day, we had no clear ends in mind and we ended up just sort of withdrawing without achieving any tangible goals.
The country was definitely worse off than before we went in, which created the conditions to create ISIS, AKA Al Qaeda in Iraq, which we essentially created.
If you can’t see that, YOU are part of the problem.
Naw man, IMHO we just sewed the anarchy seed with the hopes the Natural State of Man could be grafted to the main trunk.
Representative governments are kinda like farts, if you have to force it it’s probably shit.
It will happen organically if we can get all the faction elements out of the picture, to include us.
Look at the protests, young men are taking to the streets against religious authority.
Warms my cockles.
“…if you have to force it…”
LOL. My compliments.
An excellent way of comparing a complex historical and social process into terms we non-academic types can all relate to (and probably will not forget).
The image about that war that sticks in my mind is a video taken from the top of a tank showing the tank crew watching Iraqis loot and destroy government buildings as their country collapsed into anarchy while those US tankers sat on their thumbs and watched. Then there was the 4 ID floating around the Med looking for something to do after the geniuses in Washington failed to get the Turks’ approval for it to travel through Turkish territory.
Reminds me of an old Robert Redford movie, “The Candidate”, where a young, idealistic, but ignorant newcomer wants to “make a difference” by running for the US Senate. After a long, hard campaign the virtuous virgin politician wins. The last words of the movie are his as he asks of his ecstatic campaign manager, “What do we do now?”.
Actually, history will see this as a brilliant strategic move. I’m also an Iraq War Veteran. Had we not gone into Iraq, Afghanistan would have been much more bloody than it actually turned out to be. Even before the end of 2002, Afghanistan was turning into what would be a long, drawn-out protracted war. The terrorist strategy was also becoming evident. It was cheap on their part and would be brutally expensive on our part in resources, costs, lives, and manpower… More than what actually had been the case. This strategy was destined to ensure terrorist victory by wearing us out through heavy losses of resources, lives, and money. The difference, that worked in our favor, is our invading Iraq. Afghanistan has the kind of terrain that would make it hard for us to bring our entire military might to bear on the ground. Previous powers discovered this. In Iraq, however, the terrain was more favorable to our bringing our full ground war machine to bear. This is in addition to what we were able to bring to bear from the air and from the sea. The radical Islamic threat that we faced was not restricted to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. It included all the radical Islamic threats that exist throughout the Middle East… In their eyes, the entire Middle East that is predominantly Islamic is a part of a single nation. This entity recognized no international boundaries within the Islamic world. They also utilized warfare tactics that people would recognize, and that people would not recognize. A good book to read on this is “Unrestricted Warfare, China’s Master Plan to Destroy America.” The concepts talked about in this book were also being applied in the terrorist war against us. We had to utilize those strategies in our efforts strategically, operationally, and tactically. This included invading Iraq. This was more important to the radical Islamic terrorists than Afghanistan. Result? They focused their efforts on trying to dislodge us from Iraq instead of from Afghanistan. This eased the pressure on us enough in Afghanistan to be able to stand… Read more »
I really don’t know where to start. Just about everything you say is factually incorrect.
The Taliban does rule Afghanistan, and just about every military expert ever will tell you that diverting troops for the invasion of Iraq set us back in Afghanistan- as did Rumsfeld’s decisions to withhold additional troops during Anaconda.
The Taliban is a Pashtun Sunni fundamentalist group native to Afghanistan, focused on taking control of their country.. The main enemies in Iraq were Arab Shia groups native to Iraq, focused on taking control of their country.
We did fight Arab Sunni groups like AQIZ, later known as ISIS, that were focused on claiming the Levant for the newly declared Caliphate.
You are also confusing two concepts in Islam, the Umma (the global Islamic people), and the Caliphate (the government that should rule Islamic lands, which include most of the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Europe.)
“I really don’t know where to start.”
Me either. Stunning, isn’t it? I don’t think I can finish it.
Steeleyl: I really don’t know where to start. This is the first mistake you made. The smart thing for you to do would have been not to start at all. You have no argument. I will demonstrate that with the rest my reply to you. Steeleyl: Just about everything you say is factually incorrect. False. Everything I said is a fact-based, reasoned, logical argument. I don’t engage in arguments like this unless two criteria are met: 1. That I have extensive first-hand experience, extensive study experience, or both, in the topic. 2. That the person that I am arguing against has little to no knowledge of the topic that is being debated. I would not have jumped on here and tell you that you’re wrong if all I had was incorrect information. I would only do that if I knew for a fact that the opposition, in this case you, is wrong. Steeleyl: The Taliban does rule Afghanistan, Wrong. They do not rule all of Afghanistan. Just a fraction of it. Steeleyl: and just about every military expert ever will tell you that diverting troops for the invasion of Iraq set us back in Afghanistan- as did Rumsfeld’s decisions to withhold additional troops during Anaconda. Wrong again. The “experts” do not agree with each other with regards to the effects that invading Iraq had on Afghanistan. First, troops were not diverted from Afghanistan. Additional troops in the United States and in Europe were tagged towards going to Iraq. This included deploying troops that otherwise would not have deployed. Second, even if we deployed a million troops into Afghanistan, it would have been a costly war for us in troops, resources, and money. It was beginning to become like that towards the end of 2002. This is based on what the news reporting was shown, and on historical trends. Afghanistan is not known as “the graveyard of empires” for no reason. And, the Soviet Union was right next to Afghanistan. What should this tell you? Even if you are focusing on Afghanistan, the terrain favors guerrilla warfare and negates a lot… Read more »
“They do not rule all of Afghanistan. Just a fraction of it.”
LOL!
Twenty years of blood and treasure. And I would add a correction; ” …Just a fraction of it. So far”.
When I read the Steelyeye’s comment that the invasion of Iraq was twice as foolish as the military blunders of Napoleon and Hitler invading Russia, that was when I stopped reading his blather. The man knows little of history with statements like that. Both these historical invasions are irrelevant. They each lead to the demise of their respective rulers/military leaders, and, in the case of Germany, to the total defeat of the nation. Last I checked, we weren’t being ruled by Iraq or some ‘slamonazi faction or nation. The problem with Iraq was how me managed our victory. We mostly have professional bureaucrats like Bremmer to thank for that. Disbanding the Iraqi Army and police and barring anyone from serving in any governmental position because they were nominally former members of the Bathist Party was monumentally stupid.
The point is that invading Iraq was a horrible decision that had long ranging consequences for the nation, just as the the French and German invasion of Russia had long ranging impact on those nations (twice for Germany, if you count WWI). By the way, both Germany and France continued to exist as nations.
It doesn’t really matter who blew it; the President and his advisors approved the plan, and the rest, as they say, is history. We shouldn’t have invaded if we didn’t have a solid plan for dealing with the aftermath, which makes the decision even worse in retrospect.
When you look at strategy, you start with Ends, then develop Ways and Means. Once you have your strategic design, you consider risk. There is risk of failure, and there is risk of success- what happens if this plan works.
We never soberly consider what would happen once we controlled Iraq- the risk of success. Our leadership allowed themselves to believe that the Iraqi people would welcome us, we would build a flourishing democracy, and the rest of the Middle East would follow suit. Didn’t work out, and we knew it wouldn’t work that way before we started, but no one wanted to listen to those voices in DIA and CIA.
We ended up with more turmoil in the Middle East, a long slog (in the words of our own SecDef at the time), and a few lost decades.
So, yeah, a horrible decision that led to long range negative consequences for us and the world.
“We shouldn’t have invaded if we didn’t have a solid plan for dealing with the aftermath,..”
Words to live by. Even small children know you don’t grab the tar baby.
We might as well close down the various “War Colleges” and other advanced educational perks for senior officers and save a few million each year. They don’t seem to be working.
“In Iraq, however, the terrain was more favorable to our bringing our full ground war machine to bear….”
Reminds me of the joke about the drunk who was looking for his lost car keys under a streetlight because there was more light there than where he actually lost the keys.
That’s all I got. I just don’t have the time or patience this evening. If I did I would link to that video of ” …We are all dumber for having listened to that”.
How soon they forget.
AW1Ed: “How soon they forget.” Shack. Operation EARNEST WILL — 1987-1988 Operation PRIME CHANCE — 1987-1989 Operation NIMBLE ARCHER — 1987 Operation PRAYING MANTIS — 1988 A lot of dead Iranians were stacked up during those operations. ‘Operations Prime Chance and Praying Mantis: USSOCOM’S First Test of Fire’ https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/ussocoms-first-test-of-fire-operations-prime-chance-and-praying-mantis/ ‘[…] Prime Chance’s primary adversary was Iran’s littoral fleet of small boats, mostly Swedish-built Boghammers and Boston whaler-type craft, used by the Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) to attack commercial shipping or lay mines, and Iranian oil platforms used as observation posts. The Pasdaran’s favored tactic for attacking ships was to swarm around a target and shoot at the vessel’s bridge and superstructure with 107 mm rockets, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and machine guns. The intent was not so much to sink as to inflict as much damage as possible on the ship and crew. Prime Chance was a joint special operations and conventional force operation utilizing personnel from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) – the 160th SOAR, or “Night Stalkers” – SEALs, Special Boat Units, Marines, and the Navy. […].’ Some commenters here at TAH also seem to have forgotten about events in the Gulf in the ’80s. Of particular note, I’m sure that you have seen the comments over on your TAH thread relating to recent IRGCN shenanigans in the Gulf, where TAH’s most recent obnoxious and arrogant “lecturer” and self-proclaimed know-it-all on all things Naval has apparently forgotten all about how the US dealt with the IRGCN in the Gulf during the ’80s, as he proceeds to try to lecture us on the current IRGCN threat and how we should deal with it today. Or maybe he never knew about any of those operations in the ’80s in the first place, so perhaps Mr. Know-It-All isn’t quite the accomplished expert military historian that he fancies himself to be. Nothing that the IRGCN is doing out there in the Gulf these days is new. We’ve seen all of this crap before. Just as they did 33 years ago, it’s IRGCN assclowns riding around in Boston Whalers with 12.7mm machine… Read more »
Mick,
Iran is a middle eastern dictatorship, and as all middle eastern dictatorships, they don’t remember all those defeats as defeats, but as victories.
Their propaganda machine hid all their casualties and exaggerated or invented American casualties.
They think they won every single time they faced Americans.
Middle eastern people don’t understand limited warfare. For them all wars are total, existential conflicts, and therefore if they survived, they won.
They project their perception of war on us. If the technological and military gap was in their favor, they would have conquered us long ago and planted their flag on the White House. Therefore, since we haven’t done this to them, there is no technological or military gap in our favor.
That’s why they are so brazen. They cannot even contemplate the possibility of the massive advantage we have, because if we did we would not restrain ourselves and would have destroyed those little old boats.
Our failure to respond embolden them because it reinforces their prejudices against us. That we are incapable and unwilling.
Joe, every culture projects their perception of war on other cultures. Saddam Hussein and the Middle East in general viewed Iraq as the victor in Desert Storm.
Not sure what you mean by “Middle eastern people’, but the Shiite Iranians are completely different from the Sunni dominant terrorist groups that have carried out most of the attacks against on US interests.
As far as limited warfare, the ‘Middle eastern people’ have managed to lure us into one limited conflict after another. I think what confuses you is that most of the nation states in the Middle East are in fact Western constructs that have no bearing on the reality on the ground. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Gulf States were essentially invented by the Brits and the French in the aftermath of WWI. Iran is at least someone homogenous and contiguous with cultural, linguistic, and ethic structures.
You are limiting yourself in thinking of this in terms of maritime conflict. Iran is risking a few cheap boats and some sailors. If they are even a little lucky they can sink a multi-million dollar ship with hundreds of American souls.
I don’t disagree that we should respond; what I object to is all the ‘Merca hubris. That will get sailors and airmen, and eventually Soldiers, killed.
“‘Merca hubris”
Oh my….There goes the fourth of July.
And I thought it was a virus all along.
Assumption: we accept the trade of some bass boats for a frigate or destroyer.
Seriously? With -Trump- as CiC?
He would wreck all kinds of their stuff. It would run up the costs to them hugely. Mostly done with “stand off” capabilities, we would risk little. The low end would wreck their ability to ship petroleum, and wreck imports of needed stuff. Also sink their, to them, -very- expensive Navy.
High end? Wreck two dams and they face national catastrophe. Their water supply is a looming disaster due to decades on mismanagement of water assets and needs that makes California look sane.
Wrecking their navy, ports,and pipelines would likely be sufficient. For now.
Their internal instabilities, and heavy reliance on internal enforcement, are huge and exploitable.
Glass jaw and Muslim “boast/bully” culture. Iranians are not Arabs, but they do suffer, greatly, from their religious views.
Their 5000 year old excessive pride is another exploitable glass jaw. If Trump has a suitable commander with an obviously Greek name, he can make some serious head games.
They can buy quite capable Russian fighters -much- cheaper than trying to show off local made stuff. They squander mega-rials on homegrown, that doesn’t work very well. Pride.
Iran basicly fought a draw with Iraq. They are -much- worse off today. We don’t have Seventh Corps sitting around looking for work anymore, but we don’t need to invade, other than perhaps a short-term raid, just to make the point.
And we don’t need that raid to make their lives very difficult.
Iran is a prideful glass-jaw bully, doing everything it can to paper over fatal flaws. Their pride is exploitable.
^THIS^, I wonder if Steeleyl hasn’t been ingesting mainstream snooze media propaganda without a filter?
Not sure why you think a sober look at enemy capabilities means I hate America.
You all want to believe that a war with Iran will involve a few cruise missile launches and some awesome footage on Fox. I would love to agree.
You are all ignoring the fact that we are dealing with a capable military fighting out of fear, honor, and interest.
As you say, sinking a few bass boats won’t intimidate them. If they can trade a few of those boats for a frigate, all the better. If they can lob some long shooters at soft targets in Saudi or Iraq, awesome.
“Not sure what you mean by “Middle eastern people’,”.. Not to speak for Joe, but my guess is that he’s trying to be polite and avoid saying MUSLIMS. As has been pointed out above, they view themselves as one group, irrespective of the lines drawn (as you correctly point out, by the British and French after WWI). It is the “religious” / political worldview of islam that holds that mindset. You even point to it yourself when you say that the entire middle east viewed saddam as the victor after Desert Storm. This is because given the opportunity, muslims would kill/ rape / enslave every last one of us should they win, and it’s inconceivable to them that we would not do the same to hem (them not understanding / being capable of civilization and all..). There will never be peace with islam, until it exists only in the history books.
I’m kinda proud of my Army team by helping the Iraqis democracy-ing in ‘05 and again in ‘09(?).
I was there for both elections and it was a sight to behold.
On the upside, they’ve been relatively unable to solidify a government since. Hopefully enough of them understand the stupidity of the patronage/religious zealotry systems and out of the dumpster fire they can have an honest-to-Goodness Republic.
Time will tell!
” they view themselves as one group, i”
I don’t think so. Sunni and Shia, to start with, have been slaughtering each other since the beginning. There are other religious differences, and also tribal and political differences. Just about the only unifying influence seems to be destroying the Jewish state of Israel (along with the Jews, of course).
I should have stated it that was Tim, that they are “one group” when it comes to attacking the west or Israel. When they’re not attacking one of those groups, you are 100% correct that they are more than happy to attack each other, with the charge of not being the right flavor of muslim..
Historically, these kinds of conflicts usually proceed one of the groups dominating the other groups. Then, this develops to a situation to where all these different groups are underneath a single command. This pattern repeats itself throughout history and around the world.
It’s like that with the Chinese, with their Communist Party and individial nationaistic folk. I’ve thoroughly destroyed a CCP troll in debate. Anybody seeing our exchange would not only see how I dismantled this troll, but would also see that this troll is repeating itself with the same copy and past post over and over again. Yet, this CCP troll is declaring victory. 🙄
I’ll go out on a limb and assume you are talking about me. Sorry for taking so long to respond; I was talking to a pretty girl, then I had to prepare a cocktail and pick out just the right music (jazz.) Let me talk to your points first, then I’ll address the personal attacks. Of course I remember events in the Gulf in the ’80s. I also remember that the backdrop was the Iran-Iraq War. Iran remembers it as well. Since that time they have not only studied the US and our allies, our capabilities, and our policies, but improved their own. Iran now presents a hybrid and asymmetric threat with increased conventional capacity. Anyone who has studied this threat will tell you that the gunboats are only a small part of a multi-layered integrated defensive and offensive system. Can our ships blow these gunships out of the water? Sure. Can a swarm of gunships, drones, and ballistic and cruise missiles fired from aircraft, shore batteries, submarines, and surface vessels overwhelm the defenses of one of our ships? I won’t answer that, but if you care to read any of the After Action Reports of US ships involved in the operations you mention, you will get a pretty good idea as to the answer. Do some reading. Check out RAND, National Interest, War on the Rocks, or any number of blogs. This isn’t a dick measuring contest. The Iranians are operating in their back yard, and all they have to do is create a window of opportunity. We are operating at the extremes of our operational reach, and we have to defend everywhere, all the time. Do I think we’ll lose? No. I have faith in our ships, our troops, and our system. That said, I absolutely despise hubristic, chest thumping, kill ’em all talk. This is a serious situation that requires serious thought. Now, to the personal attacks. I never described myself as lecturer or know it all on all things naval, or even a historian. I merely pointed out errors in fact and offered my analysis. Please… Read more »
Steeleyl,
Your comment wound up in moderation, as I’m sure you are well aware. This is not an act on our part, but because of a typo in your board name.
I approved your comment as soon as I became aware of the situation.
You’re welcome.
No worries. I have Shrek fingers and am inconsistent with my user name.
Not the least worried. Just less likely to help those who come off as arrogant assholes.
Try again.
Try what again? Point out where I have insulted anyone.
I will not apologize for disagreeing with someone and pointing out errors in fact or logic.
What point is there in discussion if everyone just parrots the same sentiments?
If you want discussion you invite dissent. Ask everyone else to step up their game.
It’s not what you say. It’s how you say it. You could be speaking the gospel truth right now, but no one is listening.
Since we don’t have the “like” option: +1
Some under paid (that’s a joke, btw) and way overworked Admin had to take time from other tasks to green light your comment, because you fat fingered your board name and then took the trouble to explain why.
A simple ‘thank you’ would be appreciated.
Look, you want to come off as a counter-argument here? Cool. All are welcome to express their opinions. There are ramifications, though. Hit the TAH FNG tab at the top of the page to see what we’re about. And what you can expect.
I’m really easy to deal with, within certain well defined limits. Keep it mostly civil, and refrain from personal attacks (there are exceptions, the Lars Rule) and you and I will get along just fine.
He told you what is going on. You don’t appear to be listening.
That is a pattern on your part.
A little bit of advice, DON’T SCREW with AW1Ed because he doesn’t care and will DELETE your posts without a second thought once you go really trying to stir the proverbial pot, he’ll make you lick the spoon!
But that’s censorship! Muh first amendments! Muh free speeches! You will listen to meeee!!
Now API, I give fair warning before taking any action.
Once.
SteeleyI thinks he is the “voice of reason and logic” here. However, he is demonstrating arrogance cloaked as “reason and logic”.
The impression you have on him is the same impression I have. And more. Because of his demonstration of arrogance, I’m going to come back here and debunk his posts on this thread.
Then he will see that he is the very thing that he accuses people here of being.
KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
Shack!
“SteeleyI thinks he is the “voice of reason and logic” here”
Ahem.
Don’t we all?
(he asked, reasonably and logically)
We do. However… most of us don’t use reason and logic like a club in an attempt to beat those who disagree into submission.
I don’t see myself as the voice of reason here, nor do I get the impression that everybody else sees themselves as the voice of reason here.
What I do see is most individuals posting their perspectives without thinking that they are the sole voice of reason.
However, what I’m seeing with SteelyI is similar to what I saw with commissar, “Helpful Medal”, Cheese Slayer, Mr. Fuel, and a few others.
All their perspectives could be presented more constructively. But, their delivery encourages push-back.
I did use a lot of their tactics when I was in my early 30s, but I was anonymous, on an anonymous message board, and I was on a flame forum looking for a flame fight.
I enjoy a flame fight as much as I enjoy debating online.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, SteelyI needs to work on delivery.
It looks like others beat me to the punch.
He does remind me of “Helpful Medal” though with his demeanor and attitude.
You have confused the writings of those outlets with reality. I’m not surprised. Many do. Have the Iranians studied US methods and tactics? Of course. Have they instituted doctrines and capabilities they believe will work? I’m sure they believe so. But Rand, War on the Rocks, and other brands make money telling us stories. Not the story, a story. RAND (who has been wrong on many important issues–right McNamara?) may be a “non profit”, but that lack of profit is still a figure in the mid 8 digits quarterly. So let’s set them aside and deal in reality. In reality, we have this function called intelligence. From that function we learn what the Iranians appear to be doing. That function feeds a function called Design. From that function a number of capabilities have been designed, tested, fielded and are operational within the US Armed Forces. This cycle is so important that all the branches have dedicated organizations to it. Your views appear on this forum to share the basic mistake of the amateur crowd in that you seem to believe that everyone is adjusting but the US is not. Of course, that is the fatal fallacy of all story tellers in the defense realm. You have been told a story and you have bought it. But it is only a story designed to make money for the story teller. Like the story that US casualties in Iraq were high, or high because of body armor or vehicle armor shortages. That “analysis” was popular, but not complete and the introduction of the IBA and “up armored” vehicles did not significantly lower the number of casualties from the primary source…IEDs. Yet by 09 IED casualties were far reduced because the DoD came up with systems and tactics that defeated them. How did that happen? Design. Folks smarter than us designed capabilities that were inserted into formations in the form of technical and tactical capabilities and it changed the battlefield in ways that are little known by the story tellers. So, even though I accept your theory that Iran has evolved their capabilities,… Read more »
How in the hell did you ever make SGM with all that book learning? Do you mean to tell me that you actually got an education and not one of those “check the block for advancement” degrees? I’m willing to bet you’ve never even told a Soldier to get off your grass!
It’s inconceivable!
RAND is a federally funded research organization. They work for DoD. Their genesis was Air Force research during the Cold War.
Geez. You really don’t have to go out of your way to prove their point. They don’t need your help. Or, as we used to say in the olden days; “Don’t teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, sonny!”
The Army had the ARCIC, now part of Futures Command, that performed that function. I worked IN ARCIC for three years I am familiar with the process.
Of course we are evolving. The current Army future war fighting concept is Multi-Domain Operations, and the Joint Force is following suit. Each service has their own future operating concepts, to include the Navy.
The problem is that we are behind the power curve. We were fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost 20 years and are now coming out to recognize the Big Five (Russia, China, Iran, dPRK, and International Terrorist orgs) have gone to school on us and have the luxury of focusing on one enemy.
So, sure, we have new capabilities. But, talk to any ship or pointy nose jet driver and they will tell you that they are concerned with their ability to penetrate Russian, Chinese, A2AD systems- which they are selling to the Iranians and dPRK. Remember the dust-up over Turkey and PATRIOT? They ended up buying the S-400 from Russia. The S-400 is widely regarded as the best AMD system in the world.
We have allowed our counter mine, air defense, and other capabilities to atrophy.
We have warships crashing into container ships because our skippers don’t know how to drive and our sailors don’t know how to operate the radars, which are malfunctioning.
We have to get our collective act together, because our enemies are serious, and all they have to do is create a window of chaos.
” We were fighting a counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost 20 years and are now coming out to recognize … ”
That “we” who are “now coming out to recognize” doesn’t include a lot of us ignorant amateurs. Some of us didn’t have to focus exclusively on counter-insurgency because-
1) There are generations of material and lessons already available (the Petraeus legend notwithstanding)
2) some of us are capable of multi-tasking
3) some of us had realistic priorities
We also have snazzy new words, organizations, and acronyms! That won’t solve any problems but it will confuse everyone, especially outsiders, to the point where they can’t won’t be able to ask inconvenient questions.
” RAND (who has been wrong on many important issues–right McNamara?)”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
(McNamara responds from Hell, weeping; “But it’s not my fault! Nobody knew! It was unprecedented!”.)
Prepared a cocktail, no doubt with brightly colored pieces of fruit and whipped cream in it, along with a small paper umbrella and, of course, a straw.
It was an Old Fashioned, actually.
“ How soon they forget…”
That they forgot to learn how to swim?
They probably won’t quit running their mouths until we give them another Operation Praying Mantis.
As devastating as Operation Praying Mantis was to the Iranian Navy, I hope Trump won’t stop there.
I’d like to see their Kilo SS submarines sunk at pier side, for example. And their land based mobile cruise missile launches turned into smoking holes.
Fiberglass day-sailing technicals*? pffft.
*Good analogy. Hat tip to Sparks.
I think Operation Stomp a Mudhole would be a fine name for such operation
Operation Stomp the Cockroaches would be MY choice!
Help them get to Paradise… and the 72 black eyed virgin goats waiting for them.
Plus, Ramadan started today… makes it extra special for them.
It must suck to die hungry.
How does one shoot down a boat? When it is skipping frome wavetop to wavetop? Just curious.
You patiently wait until it skips off the wake of the ship it’s harassing, then unleash hell. Every direct fire weapon that can be brought to bear.
It’s more sporting that way.
Extra points if you can hit some of the
larger pieces before they splash.
With a fucking big gun. Next?
Iran thinks they’re playin’ cards with their brother’s kids:
https://youtu.be/bQVsyvuij20
Vulcanize them.
Depending on which side of that you are (in front of, or NOT in front of), that sound will either make you shit your pants, or give you a man chub.
(I first heard that sound back in the late 70s, watching tank tables at Graf. awesome then, awesome now)
Blawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
BlawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Cobra, cobra, flying low. Make a gun pass nice and slow…
The first time I heard on fire (Balad 2006) I was not far behind it. I nearly shat meself AND popped a freedom boner. It was a very confusing and conflicted moment.
I saw those in action when I was deployed to Iraq:
Did that Troop ever get the HE?
Lovely and useful things, yes, but being terminally cynical I always have a “But…” or two ready.
4500 rpm go up, how many and where do they come down?
How long does it take to reload?
It can put 4500rpm up, how many bad guy rpm does it keep from coming down?
Asking as a target of those rockets, etc.
I bet President Trump will lay awake for at least, oh, I dunno, .003 seconds worrying about their threat !!!
Which, coincidentally is about how long it will take to pretty much destroy the Iranian Navy…..
One good BRRRRRRT and that’s the end of them and the train to the 72 virgins already left the station long before the Iranian Sailors got to the platform !!!
Good day coming when the headstone of the former IRGC commander reads, “I Ran Iran”.
Beachboys! 1963! Right?
Love the “SAC will be back” patch.
Gents, I am off to bed. As I repose, please try to come up with a response to my arguments, or at least something interesting to say.
I have a big day tomorrow, so I won’t promise a response to anything before noon-ish at the earliest.
Please believe me when I say I love this and I mean you no ill will. I just can’t abide a hubristic and uninformed approach to national security policy. I have to say something when I see it, and I won’t apologize.
I shall count the minutes until you return.
I’ll see your minutes and raise you seconds.
And I’ll second that motion to read the minutes !!!
If there is no objection, the motion will be adopted…
Without objection, so ordered!
Looks like we got something accomplished today(?).
Pleasant dreams if you can fathom some.
You then make yourself combat-ineffective by your methods. Which makes your objective virtue-signaling, not debate or edification.
Which other folks have told you.
I am unconcerned with what other people think of me. I really don’t care if you or anyone else here like me. I’ve never met you and probably never will.
I love the clash of ideas, where clearly most of you don’t- mainly because there are very few original ideas other than chest thumping bravado- also known as hubris.
You call it hubris, I call it “you’re an arrogant, condescending, bloviating prick”.
I bet you got a lot of swirlies as a kid, didn’t you.
Nope, and that’s not a very clever comeback,
Are you trying to imply thatI must somehow be less of a man? Are you jumping to that conclusion because I call out the flaws in the arguments? How is that helping you defend the weak ideas put out by your buddies on this thread?
You’re reading far too much into my comment. When I say “you’re an arrogant, condescending, bloviating prick”, there’s no hidden meaning, no interpretation required. Clever? Maybe not. Accurate? Absolutely.
Yep. No pony under that manure.
“hubristic” There’s that word again.
“hubristically” is even more inviting to use in a sentence.
Especially here where we learn new words every day.
A word to look for…
I’m still quite proud of the fact that he had to google “sexual intellectual”.
Yes, it’s a small victory, but it’s mine. Which is nice.
Hey! I had to google that, too. What’s the big deal?!
……….oh. never mind.
Did someone mention my name?
H.R. McMaster started using the term hubris regarding US Army capability development in 2006 or so. We were so confident in our capabilities and so scornful of our enemies that we started making grand assumptions about our ability to win battles almost without fighting. Much of his thinking was shaped by the failure of Rumsfeld’s Revolution in Military Affairs, which resulted in us going into Iraq and Afghanistan with a fraction of the force we needed to deal with Phase IV operations.
However McMaster was echoing modern thought on the Thucydides Trap- the notion that war between an established and rising power is inevitable. In Ancient Greece this was Sparta and Athens- remember, this is AFTER they created the pan-Hellenic alliance that defeated Xerxes.
Thucydides boiled the reasons nations go to war to three: Fear, honor, and interest. Hubris is an important concept because it clouds judgement about all three.
Ho hum. Nothing new about military hubris. We did it in WWII, Korea, Vietnam,…Others have also done it. It’s SOP. So is reinventing the wheel.
blah, blah, blah.
blah, blah.
There’s your response. Not enough? Not what you wanted?
blah, blah, de blah, blah, blah.
“I have a big day tomorrow, so I won’t promise a response to anything before noon-ish at the earliest.”
Let me guess, you’re cooking BOTH has browns AND Egg McMuffins for breakfast shit tomorrow?
I typically don’t eat breakfast- I practice intermittent fasting, which, along with strenuous exercise and weight training, is how I maintain the perfect male form.
Do you read “Goop” and steam your mangina?
If all that is not accompanied by a vast beer intake you do not have the perfect male form.
But can he write the perfect country and western song?
One thing I think it’s important to consider is the fact that “it’s not all about us.”
What I mean by that is that when actors (whether state actors like Iran or non-state actors like ISIS) in the Middle East make boastful or threatening statements, their target audience is not necessarily the US.
They aren’t stupid, they know they can’t defeat our aircraft carriers, nuke submarines, attack planes and helicopters, etc.
The boastful and arrogant threats are for the consumption of their own people and others in their region. They are meant to show resolve and defiance, both to bolster their status in the region and to quell any possible uprising or challenges to their power because in strong-man countries like Iran, showing weakness in the face of an enemy is the quickest way to get yourself deposed.
Most of the common people in those regions have limited access to news or information, so the arrogant threats from their own people are pretty much the only thing their people hear.
As a side note, the quickest way to irritate an Arab is to refer to the body of water between the Arabian peninsula and Iran as the “Persian Gulf.” They will quickly correct you and inform you that the body of water is, in fact, the ARABIAN gulf. 😉
Exactly. You are applying what’s called ‘four ways of seeing’. How do I see the enemy, how does the enemy see me, how do I see myself, how does the enemy see himself. We also have to apply this to our allies and partners in the region and globally.
So, with that in mind, what was the target audience for the President’s statement, and how was it taken by other audiences?
What I’m wondering is how the unexpected factor of oil prices cratering will affect the region. The tin pot despots will be hard pressed to continue the repression of their people, and feed the anti-American propaganda machine, without the oil revenue most of their governments depend on.
And once the recession that’s coming sets in, there are going to be a lot of angry young men in the region with lots of silly ideas and governments who have lost control of them.
Starving people in mass can be quite dangerous.