In my ongoing theme about the extremely questionable
usefulness of training with, and depending on, allies, we get this:
Any country that complains about increased oil prices has to explain why it won’t send military forces to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oil.
Any commentator who criticizes the US military for not
keeping the strait open and shipping moving has to explain why they aren’t also
asking why the affected countries aren’t providing military forces to ensure
the uninterrupted flow of oil.
Each country has their own agenda but when those agendas
frequently conflict with US interests, one has to wonder why we waste time,
money, and resources training with countries that we can’t rely on. Devoting resources to unreliable allies is
illogical in the extreme..
The US is once again shouldering the burden of protecting
the Middle East from terrorism, nuclear threats, and evil regimes with only
Israel to aid us. The rest of the world
is content to stand off and reap the benefits without offering any support.
Japan is bracing for potential gas shortages and increased
prices. Yeah? Where are their military forces ensuring the
safe passage of shipping through the strait?
Don’t complain if you’re not willing to do something about it.
This is entering into political commentary so I’ll leave it
at that.
_____________________________
President Donald Trump said Sunday that he has demanded about seven countries send warships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, but his appeals have brought no commitments as oil prices soar during the Iran war.[1]
Any country that complains about increased oil prices has to explain why it won’t send military forces to ensure the uninterrupted flow of oil.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/03/16/trump-asks-about-7-countries-for-help-to-open-the-strait-of-hormuz/
No amount of money and funding will ever overcome an absence of strategy or preparation. Lack of allies is also a result of failing strategy and preparation.
ReplyDelete"Lack of allies is also a result of failing strategy and preparation."
DeleteNo. It's a result of differing agendas.
Do you have anything useful you'd like to contribute?
Would your „forcing“ include shooting down Israeli and US assets? I mean, this is the reason it is closed in the first place. And if you call those countries allies, wouldn’t it ne necessary to ask them first if they want to participate and share your assessment before you start a war? Just asking for a friend…
Delete"the burden of protecting the Middle East from terrorism", "evil regimes" are political opinions. The US started the war and is responsible for all repercussions.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to 'preparation of the battle area'? It was obvious that Iran would try to blockade the Gulf and would threaten its neighbours in the event of a major conflict. The US failed to warn its closest allies or seek their diplomatic and military assistance before launching its attack on Iran. Indeed the Administration has spent the previous year alienating longterm friends and then, having created a situation where the world economy could seize up, is demanding that everyone joins in an American-initiated war. Am I missing something or is US diplomacy lacking in clear and achievable objectives? There is no point in depending on allies if you have done your best to alienate them first. Perhaps the Admnistration will next expect the entire Western world to turn out to help them defend Taiwan. I wonder...
ReplyDeleteLet's say someone busted up your supply chain without involving you in that decision at all. It seems you have several options:
ReplyDelete(1) You can help the person who broke it, fix it.
(2) You can go out there and try to fix it yourself, without the other person
(3) You can see if there are ways to fix your chain some other way.
Other countries (allies and non-allies alike) appear to generally be exploring (3) before considering options like (2). I don't think it takes a PhD in international relations to understand why they aren't leaping to (1), even if that might end up there.