Monday, June 1, 2026

Decided to Stop or Forced to Stop?

The US pounded Iran and was on the verge of total destruction of Iran’s political and military power and then, inexplicably, stopped attacking in favor of pursuit of a peace agreement.
 
As we’ve often noted, you don’t negotiate with an enemy, you utterly destroy them and then impose whatever surrender terms you want. 
 
Since WWII, the US has failed to pursue ultimate victory in every conflict it’s been involved in and the results have always come back to bite us.
 
Keeping that in mind, let’s change gears.
 
ComNavOps has frequently offered estimates of weapon inventory levels by examining budget documents for the preceding years.  In very brief terms, our weapons have historically had inventories in the low to mid thousands with production rates in the low hundreds.  However, that balance has been upset by the recent heavy expenditures of weapons off Yemen, around Israel, and against Iran.  In other words, our inventories are being depleted far faster than production can replenish.
 
Now, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has done exactly what ComNavOps has done and has issued a report estimating weapon inventories prior to the Iran conflict, specific weapon expenditures during the conflict, and speculation about the amount of time required to rebuild the inventories.
 
As one example, here are the figures for Tomahawk missiles.  As reported by TWZ website, CSIS estimated a pre-war Tomahawk inventory of 3100 missiles and an expenditure of 1000+ missile, thus far.[1]
 
Think about that expenditure rate and note that was against a helpless, fourth rate enemy who was being pounded by other countries and other weapons.  Now, consider how that would change against China.  We’d be expending Tomahawks at a rate of a thousand per week!  But, I digress …
 
What about Tomahawk inventory replenishment ?  It’s not encouraging.
 
Tomahawk procurement “averaged 86 missiles in the past 10 fiscal years (FY 15–FY 26), with most orders coming from the Navy,”  CSIS noted. [1]
 
 … the recent annual production rate is less than 200 … [1]

It’s worse than that, though.  A significant chunk of production is slated for sales to foreign countries, as noted below.
 
Another factor to consider are foreign military sales, with nearly 800 due to Japan, Australia and the Netherlands.[1]

So, we have a very small production capacity which is further “eroded” by deliveries to other countries.  It’s going to take many years to recover our Tomahawk inventory levels.  How much worse will this be during a war with China?  But, again, I digress …
 
The same trends hold true, to varying degrees, for all other weapons in the US military.
 
With low inventories and dismal replenishment rates in mind and returning to the first sentence in this post, we can now legitimately ask whether the seemingly inexplicable pause on the verge of total victory was due to some [misguided] desire for a premature peace or due to having reached a state of weapons depletion that became unacceptable given the constant threat of war with China and the need to maintain a “sufficient “ stockpile of weapons.  In other words, did we choose to stop or were we forced to stop by low weapon inventories?  Did we hit the minimum “safe” inventory levels and had to stop?
 
There’s no way to know the answer but logic suggests that we stopped because we reached a point where we felt we couldn’t expend any more weapons without depleting our inventories to unacceptable levels.  If this is the case, then all the talk of the US being ready and willing to resume attacks is just public relations propaganda for the masses and Iran is in no real danger of further heavy, sustained attacks and that would certainly change the negotiation strategies on both sides.
 
What do you think?  Decided to stop or forced to stop?
 
 
Note:  This is not a post about the “rightness” of the Iran strikes, just the military aspects of those strikes.  Political comments will not be allowed.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]The War Zone website, “Severity Of America’s Depleted Advanced Weapons Stockpiles Detailed In New Report”, Howard Altman, 28-May-2026,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/severity-of-americas-depleted-advanced-weapons-stockpiles-detailed-in-new-report

101 comments:

  1. No boots, no victory. Iran is a serious adversary and cannot be bullied economically, politically or militarily. The regime has to be defeated, and that is not going to happen from the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to disagree. It can be done from the air, and we have no business entering a ground war. Its not that they are a serious adversary... theyre not. But they have layers of ideological/ theological leaders that must be eliminated. We did good things in going after leadership, and frankly it's just a matter of continuing til every rabid more senior leader is gone. We should've never stopped, and I only hope our intel services have stayed on the ball locating and tracking leadership for future strikes.

      Delete
    2. "cannot be bullied economically, politically or militarily."

      They most certainly can but it requires a commitment to seeing the job all the way through and we have stopped short of that.

      Delete
    3. Our main war objective appears to have been to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential and we appear to have largely done that with the exception of obtaining/destroying their enriched fuel which, depending on the report you read, may be buried, nearly unreachable, under collapsed earth which would make it "destroyed".

      Our secondary objective appears to have been to eliminate the political leadership which we certainly did. However, instead of continuing to eliminate new leaders until we find some who are willing to cooperate (they don't have to like us, just be cooperative), we've stopped. The attacks were working quite well but we stopped. Had we continued, we'd have likely eliminated all the radical leaders by now (I have great faith that between our intel and Israel's, we could find and target the leaders as they pop up) and found cooperative ones.

      Delete
    4. This is an example of the proverb that half measures never produce full results.

      Delete
    5. I agree that at least a credible threat of groud troops is necessary to force terms. Iran can see we dont have stomach for that, so it doesn't matter if we have the capabilities.

      Delete
    6. While inventory are surely at least a part of stopping strikes- I also wonder about the War Powers Act timeline and how much that factored in. That's more political so that discussion could quickly go out of bounds here... but did the Administration worry about that and decide "well, we've done about as much as we can do" within those constraints? Since regime change didn't happen, did the Admin start looking for a place to quit that also worked well with "preserving inventory"?

      Delete
    7. "War Powers Act"

      No President has ever recognized or been bound by the Act and Trump, in his final term and being the personality he is, is likely even less inclined to be swayed by it.

      Delete
  2. I think that the inventory is likely a big reason for the halt. But with ownership of the air... where all those dumb munitions?? And the "bomb kits" to make them guided?
    Also, I bet the TLAM numbers are even worse. My understanding is that we built NO Tomahawks last year- only 50 TLAM were converted to antiship variants by the factory. But either way... we need to massively increase production, and get a TLAM successor spun up real quick. ( among other things)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "My understanding is that we built NO Tomahawks last year"

      Bear in mind that there are multiple definitions of "built" in a given year. Funds can be appropriated ("built") and those funds may or may not be actually spent. Orders can be places but the resulting products won't be delivered that same year (depending on the specific weapon). We can take delivery of weapons in a given year. So, the number of weapons "built" depends on what your definition of "built" is. I always look at several years worth of "production" (a decade or more, preferably) to really get a feel for the average production rate.

      Delete
  3. There was a country that was in a war for 4 years, had become starved economically, had a hungry population, had suffered as many human losses as the enemy, and was starting to loose captured territory with no way to stop the advances. And it agreed to change the regime as part of the settlement. The result 15 years later was not what anyone wanted or foresaw.

    Study history or else repeat it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cited that example in my post on "True Victory".

      Delete
  4. On one hand, we've taken out the Iranian leadership and nuclear capability, but on the other hand we've left the Iranians in a stronger political position than they had at the start of the war, where we are now de facto recognising Iranian sovreignity over the Strait and agreeing that they have the authority to collect tolls and control passage through the strait.

    This is the time when the Navy should be escorting merchant shipping through the Strait and aggressively slapping down any Iranian attempts to attack shipping, and yet we've chosen to just let the Iranians be. The mind boggles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "we've taken out the Iranian leadership"

      Only the upper level and only the political side of the upper level. We largely ignored the military leadership upper level and they appear to be the one who have taken over. The political upper leadership was an easy target while the military leadership was a bit less so. We failed to get both.

      "we've left the Iranians in a stronger political position"

      Incorrect. The stronger political position belongs to the side that has the stronger military and economy, neither of which Iran has. Iran's ONLY political power is that which we [foolishly] grant them. They can negotiate and dictate ONLY to the extent that we capitulate. We are not, thus far and publicly, handling this correctly ... BY OUR OWN CHOOSING NOT THEIRS.

      "The mind boggles."

      Indeed it does.

      Delete
    2. That's what I'm trying to say. We have given Iran political power by de facto recognising their spvreignity and control over the strait, by allowing them to collect tolls and shoot at merchant shipping. We should be keeping the pressure on. We should be escorting ships through the strait. We should be using the LCSes to chase Iranian boats harrassing shipping. We should be making it clear to Iran that they are the defeated party.

      Why are we doing this? I suspect it's because CENTCOM is predominanrly an Aemy show, and was so focused on the land that they forgot about the sea in their.planning.

      Delete
    3. "I suspect it's because CENTCOM is predominanrly an Aemy show, and was so focused on the land that they forgot about the sea in their.planning."

      That's a highly dubious proposition. The strait is THE center of gravity for Iran. It is inconceivable that our military leaders, inept as they are, would fail to recognize that.

      Our inexplicable pause is political in nature rather than military unless it's a weapons inventory limitation.

      Delete
  5. The potential impacts of the war on missile inventories were reported in the news media as being a serious Pentagon concern even before the shooting started, so I imagine it was in the mix. However, I haven't seen any strong evidence that it was definitive.

    Timing-wise, it was my distinct impression that the South Pars attack rather quickly shifted US decision-makers from warfighting mode into diplomacy mode. Likewise, it seemed suggestive that the actual cease-fire came right on the heels of the Prince Sultan attack and the downing of the F-15 with the risk of a crewman being captured, suggesting those events shifted US thinking even further toward risk aversion.

    Of course I'm not sure how any of that could be proven, one way or another, since I wasn't in the room. You may say those events were too minor to justify the proposed response, and I would reply the logic being applied at the top levels may not be your logic. I'm just following the circumstantial evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I haven't seen any strong evidence that it was definitive."

      What did you think you'd see? A public, daily countdown about how many munitions we had left that we were willing to use? Perhaps Trump or a general holding a press conference to announce that we'd hit our limit on weapon expenditures? Of course there's no direct evidence. That's what peripheral data and logic are for - to lead us to conclusions when there is no direct evidence. Use your reasoning skills and the data that we do have. I've laid it out for you in the post.

      "South Pars"

      Do you believe that one attack is going to end our war plans? That's absurd. If it was true then we weren't very serious about the war and shouldn't have gotten into it.

      "downing of the F-15"

      Again, absurd. If the loss of a single aircraft is enough to make us give up then we really weren't serious to begin with.

      "I'm just following the circumstantial evidence."

      No, you're not! You're seeing correlation without causation. On the day we stopped our attacks, I sneezed. There's correlation! We must have stopped because I sneezed!

      None of the incidents you cite would have the slightest impact on anyone's version of a serious war plan.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure why you are so confident there was/is a serious war plan.

      Delete
    3. "I'm not sure why you are so confident there was/is a serious war plan."

      I'm not at all confident there was/is a serious war plan! There was serious intent ... initially ... but intent is not a plan.

      Delete
  6. Very interesting. I beg to differ that the US was was on the verge of total destruction of Iran’s political and military power - but I totally agree that the US were "forced to stop" given the dwindling inventories. It also points to a very serious strategic mistake : delusion on what could really be achieved. It was the same in Irak, in Afghanistan, and it points to a clear lack of abilities and competences of the US governments & military. It also means that the US is hopelessly outclassed in any conflict with China - and won't even try to defend Taiwan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I beg to differ that the US was on the verge of total destruction of Iran’s political and military power"

      Then you beg to be wrong. Iran's entire upper tier political leadership was wiped out. The military leadership appears to have stepped into the political vacuum and for reasons inexplicable we've opted not to kill them.

      Iran's military is gone with the exception of a few odd missiles or speed boats. They are militarily helpless.

      "It also points to a very serious strategic mistake : delusion on what could really be achieved. "

      No, it points to what can be failed if the plan is not carried through to conclusion. Every conflict the US has entered since WWII, we have failed to follow it through to conclusion.

      " It also means that the US is hopelessly outclassed in any conflict with China"

      Oh good grief. I won't even bother countering something that asinine.

      Delete
    2. The top-level deaths largely came in the first couple of days - most in a single strike I believe. After that, the rate of 'trophy kills' went way down. Presumably the military leaders were harder to find than civilians, and/or they got more cagey and plugged up operational leaks after the intial strikes. So in a sense, yes, the cease-fire was "opting not to kill them." But we should acknowledge that it's not like we could just get to them whenever we wanted - killing them all from the air would be an open-ended process of years.

      Delete
    3. "Presumably the military leaders were harder to find than civilians"

      I suspect it was more a case of not prioritizing the military leadership which, if true, was a miscalculation.

      "killing them all from the air would be an open-ended process of years."

      No. You just need to kill enough to make the remaining ones realize that the leadership business comes with a very short lifespan and that a degree of grudging cooperation is preferred.

      Delete
    4. The decapitation of top polical and miltary leaders is totally different from the destruction of the political and military power. The fact that the "negotiations" between the US and Iran are dragging on, that Ormuz is still interdicted, that the gulf state are in angst, is clear proof that Irant political and military power has not collapsed.

      Delete
    5. " clear proof that Irant political and military power has not collapsed."

      Nonsense. What it proves is that, for reasons we can only speculate about, we've stopped the war and ALLOWED Iran continue as an annoyance. They haven't shut the strait; we've shut it for them. They have no military capability to contest it if we choose to fight.

      Politically, no one even knows who's in charge in Iran, if any one person is (probably not). Their political leadership is destroyed and reports suggest a fractured military is exercising sporadic, uncoordinated control.

      Delete
    6. "Ormuz is still interdicted,"

      Utter nonsense. As proof, Iran is unable to transit any of their ships. If they controlled the strait, they could sail their ships through it ... but they can't. The US, meanwhile, is quietly escorting ships through the strait regularly. Why we don't just line up every ship in a massive bow to stern convoy and send 'em all through and dare Iran to do anything about it (they can't), is baffling to me. We control the strait, not Iran.

      Delete
  7. "Think about that expenditure rate and note that was against a helpless, fourth rate enemy who was being pounded by other countries and other weapons."

    So the US consumed 1000+ Tomahawk and 1100+ JASSM against Iran because it... run out of iron bombs and JDAMs and it's fighting a.. "fourth rate enemy"?

    "The US pounded Iran and was on the verge of total destruction of Iran’s political and military power and then, inexplicably, stopped attacking in favor of pursuit of a peace agreement."

    I guess consuming 25% of JASSM inventory, 60% of Patriot, 50%+ of SM-3, 70%+ of THAAD, 1/3rd of Tomahawk, 25% of SM-6 plays a somewhat significant role. As does the fact that all US bases were pounded, basically all THAAD radas were destroyed, at least one AWACS aircraft was destroyed and aircraft sorties fell through the roof since they had to take off from far away bases and many air tankers were seriously damaged.

    Yet you still call Iran a "fourth rate enemy on the verge of total destruction". Despite the US IC concluding that Iran has already rebuilt a large part of its arsenal and repaired damaged facilities. Talk about projection

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "run out of iron bombs "

      ???? Who even suggested that? Reports suggest we have mountains of dumb bombs but we don't want to use them, presumably for fear of loss of aircrew.

      "all US bases were pounded,"

      ALL bases? That's not even remotely true.

      "all THAAD radas were destroyed,"

      Really? You know where all are radars are and what their status is? You're just making stuff up.

      "one AWACS aircraft was destroyed "

      One aircraft was destroyed??!!! Let's halt the war! We're beaten because we lost one aircraft!

      "sorties fell through the roof since they had to take off from far away bases "

      ???? Sorties dropped because we hit all the initial targets and then, for unknown reasons, opted to stop our attacks.

      "many air tankers were seriously damaged."

      ???? Where are you getting your information? A cereal box? The Air Force website states we have around 400 KC-135 tankers. Any losses couldn't even make the tiniest dent in that number.

      Seriously, if you want to write fiction, write a book and sell it as a military thriller and then you can make up anything you want. Here, you have to stick to facts.

      Delete
    2. So turns out that the US military used 2000+ Tomahawks and JASSM against a "fourth rate enemy" because it was worried about actual, real threats to USAF aircraft (and Iran downed dozens of costly HALE UAVs). You don't consume that kind of ammunition against a "fourth rate enemy". It's time you decided what class enemy the US is really fighting against.

      "You know where all are radars are and what their status is? You're just making stuff up."

      Mate, all direct hits against THAAD radars were verified by satellite images. Were you living under a rock all this time?

      "Here, you have to stick to facts."

      It's at least thankful that you didn't challenge the main ammunition inventory consumption numbers since these are directly from CSIS analysis. As for the rest, satellite photography has proven direct hits to US bases in the Gulf and the destruction of high value assets (THAAD radars, other radars and telecommunication equipment, AWACS, air tankers).

      "we hit all the initial targets and then, for unknown reasons, opted to stop our attacks"

      I already stated the reasons. The US consumed a catastrophically large percentage of its main ammunition arsenal, got main sensors destroyed (especially the ones used for ABM defense), had bases close to the theater out of service and its only available option was to escalate against civilian/energy targets which would be countered by Iranian targeting of Gulf oil/energy assets.

      Your argument is basically "do total war (especially in terms of ammunition consumption) in order to achieve limited political aims". Most people easily understand that such a proposition is absurd

      Delete
    3. "You don't consume that kind of ammunition against a "fourth rate enemy".

      Of course you do if you don't want to risk aircrews.

      "Mate, all direct hits against THAAD radars were verified by satellite images"

      Mate, did someone say there were no hits on a radar? No. You stated that ALL radars were destroyed and you have no proof, whatsoever.

      "proven direct hits to US bases"

      Certainly some bases were hit. No one said otherwise. You incorrectly stated: " all US bases were pounded". ALL bases were not hit (nowhere near all) and most suffered only minor damage as opposed to being "pounded". You're engaged in fiction writing.

      "bases close to the theater out of service"

      I'm unaware of any US airbase that was forced to cease operations.

      I'm not going to say this again. Stick to facts. If you want to write fiction, do it elsewhere. Comment carefully, if you choose to do so again.

      Delete
    4. "Of course you do if you don't want to risk aircrews."

      A "fourth grade army" is able to pose such a threat to the "greatest military force of the world" that it consumes 25-35% of its stand-off ammunition stockpiles in order to hit targets from literally hundreds of kms away. Yet you insist on calling it "fourth grade army".

      "You stated that ALL radars were destroyed and you have no proof, whatsoever."

      It is a fact that THAAD radars in Muwaffaq Salti Air Base (Jordan), Prince Sultan Air Base (Saudi Arabia), Al-Ruwais Air Base (UAE), Al-Sadder (UAE) were hit. So did the AN/FPS-132 radar in Qatar. Which made the AWACS hit even more critical given the substantial gaps in radar coverage in the area (any AWACS flying in the.. US play absolutely no role in the theater). These are all hits verified by satellite images.

      It's really impressive how "Iran is decimated" (cause we say so), yet anyone claiming serious hits to early warning and base infrastructure in the Gulf has to provide a complete and detailed inventory of every one hit or else "never happened". Some would call it one sided.

      Delete
    5. "fourth grade army"

      It doesn't matter how weak a military is, taking out thousands of targets, many (the majority?) being non-military or quasi-military in nature, simply requires a LOT of munitions. The state of Michigan has no military but it would still require LOTS of munitions to eliminate its manufacturing and government. You're refusing to recognize reality and trying to twist it into something you can argue about.

      "THAAD radars in"

      Some radars were hit. None were US, as far as I know. No one, least of all you, knows how many radars were in the region, where they were, or what their current status is. Had you simply stated that SOME radars were hit, you'd have been fine but you tried to make the sweeping statement that ALL radars were destroyed. Stick to facts not fiction.

      "AWACS"

      Do you really think we had only one AWACS in the entire Middle East and no way for a replacement to fly into theater? Losing a single aircraft in a war is insignificant.

      "yet anyone claiming serious hits to early warning and base infrastructure in the Gulf has to provide a complete and detailed inventory"

      No. A simple statement that SOME radars and bases were hit would have been factual and perfectly acceptable. You chose to exaggerate, to put it politely.

      "Some would call it one sided."

      I would call it insistence on facts. I hold myself to the same standard. I present facts and if I engage in speculation, I make it clear that's what it is.

      Stick to facts and you'll be fine. Fiction presented as facts is not acceptable.

      Delete
  8. What could account for our inability to rebuild our munitions stores?

    It has been a recognized problem for years.
    Funds have been allocated.
    We do maintain the industrial capability to manufacture them.

    At this point, I'm suspecting we have a corruption problem that rivals Soviet failure immediately prior to their fall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There wasn't any substantial industrial capacity to manufacture munitions till a few years ago. The US was producing a few thousand 155mm shells until the Russia-Ukraine war. It was buying token amounts of various munitions (THAAD interceptors, SM-3/6). The industrial capacity to surge these munitions was non-existent because no (private) company would invest in idle capacity/workers, especially when there wasn't a prospect for sustained, large, multi-year procurements.

      Even increasing the production rate for 155mm shells and PAC-3 interceptors took many years and that stands at roughly 100K shells/month and 650 PAC-3s annually

      Delete
    2. "I'm suspecting we have a corruption problem that rivals Soviet failure"

      Relax. You're way overthinking this. There's no corruption preventing production. Corruption would produce the opposite result as companies would try to build MORE weapons than needed in order to make more money!

      Think simpler. The problem is that after the fall of the Soviet Union, we had no immediate, large threat and we allowed our production to tail off. Once done, it's very hard to reconstitute and, until very recently, we refused to admit the China (or anyone else!) was a threat sufficient to justify rearming the military. This is just a simple case of short-sighted neglect.

      Delete
    3. "The industrial capacity to surge these munitions was non-existent because no (private) company would invest in idle capacity/workers, especially when there wasn't a prospect for sustained, large, multi-year procurements."

      Spot on! After the fall of the Soviet Union, we stopped procuring large stocks of weapons and industry, quite rightly and understandably, downsized weapons production. Once lost, it's very difficult to regrown the capacity. As you note, we've been inching upward for the last few years but still weren't very serious about it. Maybe this will give us the boot in the rear we need.

      Delete
  9. Quite frankly if Iran was a 4th rate enemy, this clearly shows that our weapons inventories are insufficient for dealing with China, a 1st rate enemy, especially when we'll be facing even worse basing options compared to Iran. The Air Force will effectively be sidelined due to the distances involved. Any airpower we bring is going to be woefully limited. Say by some miracle we can concentrate 4 carriers, that only gives us some 200-odd fighters. The Chinese can easily put up 5 times that number to face us, and that's just counting their fighters on par with the F-18 and F-35.

    Like it or not, cruise missiles are going to be a necessary weapon for use in a war with China, and we have just run down our stockpile on an adversary that didn't really rate using our most expensive weapons on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "clearly shows that our weapons inventories are insufficient for dealing with China"

      Correct although the key is not so much our inventories as our ability to produce replacements. We didn't start WWII as the arsenal of democracy - that came about as we converted existing manufacturing to war manufacturing. Our pre-WWII weapon inventories were pitiful and, to a large extent, antiquated but we were able to produce replacements quickly AFTER WE GEARED UP manufacturing.

      "The Chinese can easily put up 5 times that number to face us"

      Come on now, don't be ridiculous. The Chinese can't instantaneously assemble a thousand fighters in any one location. You're comparing one carrier task force to China's entire air forces! Do you really think that's how we'll fight? Don't be ridiculous.

      "we have just run down our stockpile on an adversary that didn't really rate using our most expensive weapons on."

      Really? What's the alternative? The alternative was to either use dumb bombs which would expose aircrews to loss (unacceptable in today's culture) or to send troops ashore to fight (also unacceptable). Stand off weapons were the obvious choice and they did their job perfectly - great results with no risk to US personnel.

      Delete
    2. It should be noted that China's current inventory of 4th and 5th Generation fighters numbers 2000 aircraft in service. While we would clearly concentrate our strength to prosecute attacks, it's questionable whether we would have enough local air superiority to perform combat operations.

      There are ways, politicallly, to constrain this air fleet and force virtual attrition, but that's outside the realm of this blog so I will.not discuss them.

      It would seem to me that we would be better served using these aircraft as CAP to protect the carriers and the DDGs who would be firing cruise missiles into China.

      "The alternative was to either use dumb bombs which would expose aircrews to loss"

      We didn't use dumb bombs tho. We used JDAMs, GPS guided bombs, which have a 15 mile range, letting us attack from outside SHORAD range after we destroyed Iran's air defenses. JDAM is a humble, effective workhorse weapon, with a unit cost of 25 grand. Boeing builds 150 JDAM kits A DAY. Contrast that with how long it tales to build a Tomahawk...

      Delete
    3. "it's questionable whether we would have enough local air superiority to perform combat operations."

      You need to think through likely combat operations. Unless we were trying to attack downtown Beijing, China would be no more able to easily concentrate defensive air power than we would. China is an enormously large area to protect and China's air forces are spread over the entire area. They'd be challenged to assemble fifty or a hundred aircraft on short notice. Short notice is what a carrier excels at, by the way.

      That said, I've repeatedly stated the modern purpose of carriers and carrier aircraft is to defend the Tomahawk shooters.

      Delete
    4. Current IC estimates of China's missile inventory is roughly the same as the number of missiles FIRED by Iran during the conflict. That shows how ridiculous that estimate really is. Even if that estimate was true, given that China will probably be the one deciding when to attack and its vast industrial capacity, its missile inventory is a policy variable which it will decide beforehand.

      Yet even with current missile estimates, US analysis shows that China can crater main US bases to deny fighter air operations for days and tanker operations for weeks on end, even taking into account THAAD batteries: https://www.stimson.org/2024/cratering-effects-chinese-missile-threats-to-us-air-bases-in-the-indo-pacific/

      "The simulation shows that PLARF runway attacks exhaust U.S. and Japanese missile defense interceptors within the first 24 hours and close U.S. bases to fighter operations for at least 280 hours (11.7 days) in Japan and 40 hours (1.7 days) in Guam and other Pacific locations.

      Also important, PLARF missile strikes keep runways closed to tankers and other large aircraft, such as bombers, for a minimum of 800 hours (33.3 days) in Japan and 96 hours (four days) at bases in Guam and elsewhere."


      As for carriers, the Iran war showed that the USN is not ready to put them in any danger whatsoever and will park them in safe distances. Problem is that there aren't any safe distances in the Pacific that also allow for any meaningful operations given China's ASBM ranges.

      Delete
    5. "You need to think through likely combat operations. Unless we were trying to attack downtown Beijing, China would be no more able to easily concentrate defensive air power than we would."

      I think we're mirror imaging the enemy a little bit here. The US does not have this power because we have had a steady drawdown of combat squadrons in the Air Force and Air National Guard. During the Cold War, every single state on the eastern seaboard had an ANG fighter squadron assigned to CONUS air defense that was OPCON to NORAD. Now? The entire eastern seaboard is now covered by the single fighter squadrons of the Florida, Virginia, and Vermont ANGs.

      In contrast, the PLAAF has a network of bases positioned strategically throughout china, and more importantly, they fill their airbases with wings (min 3 squadrons). And let's not forget, as you've said before, they have sensor dominance within the South China Sea and will be able to see our moves and plan accordingly.

      Delete
    6. China's bases are spread out over hundreds/thousands of miles. They can't instantly concentrate aircraft any more than we can. A carrier group can easily achieve temporary, local numerical superiority for any reasonable operation. Assaulting the mainland is NOT a reasonable operation.

      Delete
    7. "Assaulting the mainland is NOT a reasonable operation."

      Perhaps, but I can't imagine a war with China in which we are not attempting to strike targets on the coast. Their shipyards and supportig industry are all over the coast. There's a lot of counterforce targets we will need to attack in order to slow their optempo and help us relive taiwan.

      Delete
    8. "can't imagine a war with China in which we are not attempting to strike targets on the coast."

      That would be a job for thousand+ mile cruise and ballistic missiles and, perhaps, stealth bombers.

      Delete
  10. The question is: "To what end?"

    I was on a team that did a 'book-to-floor' and 'floor-to-book' audit of Several ammunition storage and manufacturing plants and I am certain that the USA maintains a mountain of 'dumb' air-dropped munitions, which are 100% suitable for this phase of the war against the relatively defenseless Iranians.

    But the point remains: to what ends? The Administration has received enormous latitude from Congress, yet this remains an undeclared war that is not popular among Americans (at least yet). This is not a good place for the nation.

    Surely the cheapest military option is to drop a low yield thermonuclear device on Tehran, but cheap and easy is also hugely undesirable. We could destroy a number of dams and render Iranians without water. We could eliminate their electrical grid. We could truly wreck their economy by destroying oil fields, pumping stations and POL storage with little effort, but again, to what ends?

    I had a Christian Syrian interpreter in Iraq who noted that his family was saved by the Islamic Republic. That same bigoted, nasty, evil regime allowed many Christians to escape Assad and stay in Iran for years before ultimately getting asylum in the USA. I have no issue with incinerating Iran - this remains a decades old war stretching back to 1979, but I do not see evidence that we have a clear picture of we really want to happen in Iran, even less how to do it, less still what we are willing to do (and spend) to get that result. That is a good recipe for failure.

    GAB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To what end?"

      In my view, the major failing of this war is the administrations failure to sell the war to the American public by outlining the objectives of the war. We can infer that elimination of Iran's nuclear capability was one of, if not the main, objectives. Elimination of Iran's political leadership was clearly another objective. Halting the export of terror was likely a by-product objective. Beyond that, we don't know what the war objectives were so we can't completely evaluate the degree of success.

      It is also obvious that we lacked a clear end point and plan to achieve that endpoint. At least, I hope what we're doing now wasn't the plan!

      Delete
    2. "elimination of Iran's nuclear capability was one of them"

      That was achieved by the JCPOA. It was even achieved during the negotiations as the Omani foreign minister articulated on the same day that the war started.

      "Elimination of Iran's political leadership was clearly another objective."

      A political goal can only be a "change in behavior". Ideally with a specific plan to achieve that. Just killing people does not achieve that. It's not a plan, it's a wishlist.

      Delete
    3. "That was achieved by the JCPOA."

      You just squandered whatever credibility you had! LOL

      "Just killing people does not achieve that."

      Tell that to Germany or Japan. Tell that to Sadaam Hussein. Tell that to Syria's Assad. Tell that to Hezbollah whose surviving leadership is now trying for some kind of peace agreement.

      Delete
    4. Comment deleted. You entered into pure politics and personal criticisms of Trump. You can do that on some other blog. We'll stick to military matters.

      Delete
    5. "Tell that to Germany or Japan. Tell that to Sadaam Hussein. Tell that to Syria's Assad. Tell that to Hezbollah whose surviving leadership is now trying for some kind of peace agreement."

      true, but there is a nuance. I think we've been a little too effective. We've killed off so much of the upper leadership that nobody is really in charge. In Germany and Japan's case, there was still recognised upper leadership around that could declared surrender. In the case of Syria's Assad, there was a replacement political power on the ground, the Syrian rebels, who took over and replaced the shattered governing structure.

      I

      Delete
    6. Iran still has leadership. They've just not yet felt enough pain to prompt a surrender. We need to continue decapitating them.

      Delete
    7. It looks like they've pretty much devolved and decentralised what leadership they have. Every man is in charge of himself, now that coordination and command from higher authority has been cut.

      It's kinda wild to think that the Iranians have devolved launch authority to Captains and Majors, which is just, wew.

      Delete
    8. I simply don't understand why the author posts blog posts like this, where the whole conversation is inane without considering the political elements to the decision making.

      Can we talk about missile stocks? Sure. But does it make any sense to argue whether missile stocks are driving strategic decision making, when we are barred from discussing the obvious alternative explanations? What's the point?

      Delete
    9. "conversation is inane without considering the political elements"

      I'll give you multiple reasons:

      1. People are incapable of calm, rational discussions about politics. Even the peripheral mentions allowed in this blog produce biased, unfounded, totally unproductive rants.
      2. There are plenty of other blogs for discussing politics. This one is focused on military matters.
      3. It's my blog so we'll do it my way.

      If you feel you can't make a point without delving into politics (and I suspect, from your comments, a severe case of TDS), then skip this discussion and wait for the next post or topic that you CAN discuss without politics.

      Delete
    10. Kostas wasn't entirely wrong. History has shown us that we cannot prosecute a war purely from the air. for decisive change and effect, we need to have boots on the ground and an occupying force. We occupied Germany. We occupied Japan. We occupied Iraq. The Syrian rebels were their own boots on the ground who occupied Syria.

      Counterpart, Kosovo. We tried to fight a war from the air, focusing on force protection, and we did not achieve our aims.

      Delete
    11. "History has shown us that we cannot prosecute a war purely from the air. for decisive change"

      It all depends on what change we want. No, we cannot achieve total defeat as in WWII but we most certainly can achieve elimination of nuclear capability, destruction of industries, elimination of military capability, and decapitation of leadership to force a more cooperative leadership.

      Delete
    12. It's a little counterintuitive, but our experience against the Taliban and Al Qaeda shows that killing enemy leadership doesn't always lead to surrenders. It counterintuitively increases their determination and willingness to fight, because what we're doing is that we're helping them self select for the true believers.

      At the point when we were regularly attacking and killing Taliban leadership, the effects we saw, at best, were operational pauses as the warbands had to consolidate and reorganise under the sucessor, before they continued operations - which is very much like what we train to do in the Army when our leadership is decapitated: The next man in line moves up, the unit pauses to consolidate and reorganise, and then resumes operations.

      Because everyone knew we were targeting and killing leadership figures, the casuals, the pragmatists, they get the hell out of dodge. They don't join up, they don't stay in long enough to become leaders. The only people joining up were the true believers, dudes who knew that they were going to get killed if they got a leadership position, and they accepted that fact and were prepared for it to happen.

      In the army, a Lieutenant who was leading a platoon 3 months ago can find himself the battalion commander, having been promoted to the role to replace combat losses.

      Delete
    13. "doesn't always lead to surrenders"

      It always leads to success either through modifying leadership or wiping out the believers. The problem with the Taliban and AQ is that we were never serious and fully committed. We conducted occasional strikes and hoped for good results. That's not a strategy; that's a public relations exercise.

      "operational pauses"

      If you were in the army then you know that when the enemy "pauses" is when you should increase your offense and finish them off. Did we do that? No. Hence, the concept of attacking leadership failed because we didn't see it through. We weren't serious. That's been America's problem since WWII.

      Delete
    14. I'm just saying: WE wouldn't break from getting our leadership killed. To break us, you actually have to inflict mass casualties on our force, literally actually killing us.

      The US Army will not surrender, it will stand and die. I've always thought it odd how we assume we're special in that regard, that no one else will do the same thing.

      Delete
    15. Are you really unable to see the difference between an entire US military of people who share the same proper values and an enslaved band being led by a handful of people with values NOT shared by those they purport to lead? Kill the fanatics and eventually you get to more normal people. Kill US soldiers and you just get more of the same because the leaders and led share the same ideals.

      Sadaam Hussein wasn't leading a nation of like minded citizens. He was ruling by fear a nation of relatively normal people.

      If this is beyond your ability to grasp then you need to find a blog that's a good deal more simplistic and on your level.

      And, yes, WE most certainly would break from having our leadership decimated. WE would cease to function as a coherent, effective unit. When enough levels of leadership are eliminated in a short enough time, the unit becomes non-functional. This is exactly the opportunity Army officers are trained to look for in the enemy and exploit. If you are current or former Army you should know this.

      Delete
    16. Both of you are right in some respects and wrong in other respects.

      The other Anon is correct that the observed behaviour we have seen from the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda is that killing the leadership doesn't allow the moderates to rise up and pump the brakes. These sorts of organisations are self-selecting for fanatics for their leadership positions, and directly targeting their leaders doesn't really change their culture. Note the IRGC - they had a pause after we assasinated Soleimani, but then it was back to business for them. Note also that the Taliban, ISIS, the IRGC, and so forth - these non-state actors use volunteers for their combat forces. The enslaved populace are used in noncombat roles. Power is concentrated and wielded by those who have complete buy-in to the cause.

      At the same time, I have also seen where killing the leadership can change an organisation. I worked with the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police. Early into our occupation of Afghanistan, the ANA and ANP had a lot of officers and leaders who were willing to get stuck in and fight the Taliban. They were hard chargers who didn't shy away from the fight, who didn't find accomodations with the Taliban. They were aggressive, courageous leaders.

      What happened was that the Taliban put a lot of effort into killing these officers and their units. Fast forward 20 years, and the ANA and ANP collapse when faced with open fighting against the taliban because the officers who would stand and fight have been attritted away in 2 decades of fighting, leaving the cowards and traitors as the surviving leadership.

      The problem for us trying to repeat this is that this was the result of 20 years of consistent focus by the Taliban. We hop from the next big thing to the next big thing, with very little persistence or focus beyond the next election.

      CNO, you're not wrong in your point about eliminating enough levels of leadership. It's a lot harder for a sergeant to pull together a shattered company than it is for a Lieutenant to pull together a shattered battalion. But the problem, in my experience, is that this really falls into several facets:

      - We need to kill enough layers of the enemy's military leadership to force an operational pause. (The Iranians attempted to mitigate this by devolving launch authority to individual missile batteries, which is why their missile launchers and return fire have been so uncoordinated.)
      - We need to kill enough layers of the enemy's political leadership that the survivor is willing to call things off and work with us so that they don't die.
      - The surviving political leadership needs to be accepted as having authority over the surviving military elements. It is quite possible for us to shatter the chain of command so thoroughly that the military survivors reject the authority claimed by the political survivors.
      - In the situation above, we're going to see the formerly unified political and military landscape descend into warlordism, which, depending on our goals, may be an acceptable end state, or instead keeps the conflict going on.


      For example: If we want a signed Instrument of Surrender, the hostile nation having devolved into their Warlord Era makes such a document impossible to receive until they've settled infighting and one warlord stands supreme.

      On the other hand, if we simply wanted to completely remove the existing political and military leadership and eliminate specific targets, then this is in fact an acceptable end state for us and we can call it quits.

      Delete
    17. "And, yes, WE most certainly would break from having our leadership decimated. WE would cease to function as a coherent, effective unit. When enough levels of leadership are eliminated in a short enough time, the unit becomes non-functional. This is exactly the opportunity Army officers are trained to look for in the enemy and exploit. If you are current or former Army you should know this."

      This does nothing to us. We have Commander's Intent. We know what the job is and what to do about it. The army has taken Lieutenants leading platoons and turned them into shake and bake Majors leading battalions. That is the constant WW2 experience. Dick Winters on D-Day was a 1LT platoon commander; 3 months later he was a Major and Battalion CO. That's why the Army is overstaffed on officers and NCOs: it's inefficient, sure, but that's where we get our cadre for new units, where we get our replacement officers for combat attrition.

      Taking out our leadership and doctrine does jack shit to us because we don't even do our doctrine. Our doctrine is fuck it we ball.

      By the time sufficient layers of leadership have been killed off to make a unit combat ineffective, the unit has already taken so many casualties that the enemy has in in fact as fucking killed us, as opposed to forcing a pause on us because our leaders are dead.

      Delete
  11. Outside of an extreme scenario, isn't being "forced" always a decision? Whatever red line there is in the inventory of advanced munitions is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.

    But more importantly, We have plenty of non-advanced munitions. And as noted above, we could also use very advanced (nuclear) weapons. We decide not to.

    Another factor that could be at play is that the War Powers Act has generally been interpreted to limit the use of the military to 60 days or less (now past) w/o Congressional approval.

    This is not a political point. Just an observation that it's generally considered a legal requirement, so at that point, we have to make some determinations about who the "we" is that is being forced or deciding to cease operations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Whatever red line there is in the inventory of advanced munitions is bound to be somewhat arbitrary."

      Until you've fired your last bullet, of course the decision is arbitrary but it is based on calculated reserve requirements. I'm not seeing what point, if any, you're trying to make.

      "Another factor that could be at play is that the War Powers Act"

      No president has ever recognized that or felt bound by it. I doubt it was much of a factor in anyone's thinking.

      Delete
  12. War Powers Act is 30-30-30...

    GAB

    ReplyDelete
  13. This “shortage” is a completely training induced condition. We stopped training with dumb bombs and unguided artillery munitions because they take too many sets and reps to be proficient. As a result, fires planners / targeteers / fire support coordinators know that Commanders will deny non-PGM missions for fear of collateral damage.
    We need to get back to 29 Palms and Yuma and become comfortable with adjusting fire and danger close missions so we can do them in combat. For now, prosecute whatever missions we can with drones or iron munitions so we don’t lose momentum in Iran because the longer we sit the stronger the ayatollah gets politically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "fires planners / targeteers / fire support coordinators know that Commanders will deny non-PGM missions for fear of collateral damage."

      That's likely a part of it but only a small part. The far larger factor is personnel risk. In a less than existential war, we, as a nation and a military, are extremely reluctant to risk aircrews to delivery dumb bombs.

      Delete
    2. Rattling back in my memory was something I read that stated that "in Vietnam you needed 20 aircraft sorties to confidently take out a target with dumb bombs, compared to now where one aircraft sortie might take out four targets". If that's even remotely true, it is an argument not to risk aircrews with dumb bombs.

      Delete
    3. "20 aircraft sorties to confidently take out a target with dumb bombs, compared to now where one aircraft sortie might take out four targets"

      I don't know about the numbers but the concept is valid. Another way of saying it is that guided weapons are generally more accurate than unguided. Simple as that.

      For a non-existential war (we won't lose our country if we lose the war) such as this, against a fourth rate military, there is no need to risk aircrew IF YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT GUIDED MUNITIONS. If, as the post suggests, you hit a lower limit on guided munition inventories below which you don't want to go then you have only two choices: stop (which we seem to have done) or switch to unguided munitions and accept greater risk to aircraft and crews.

      That we would even be discussing the possibility that munition inventories have affected our military effectiveness suggests a few things:

      1. We've developed the wrong types of weapons and failed to develop some of the right ones. For example, large caliber naval guns on armored ships might have proven quite useful.
      2. Our inventories were insufficient to prosecute the war and our political and military leaders failed in their responsibility to be prepared for war.

      Are we now attempting to substitute bluff for military might? Circumstantial evidence suggests that might be the case.

      Delete
    4. I'm just saying fellas, blaming JDAM is kinda barking up the wrong tree.

      @BA 1959: The Gulf War Airpower survey did a comparison of.pgm strikes vs dumb bombs. 12 sorties droped 28 laser guided bombs, vs 12 sorties dropping 168 dumb bombs.

      PGM sorties got 26 hits, dumb bomb sorties got 2 hits. PGMs may cost more, but you lose your cost savings in time.and repeated sorties. You'd need to fly 156 sprties to get the same hitrate with dumb bombs.

      There's also the Dragon's Jaw Bridge in vietnam, which withstood dozens of attacks, and was finally demolished by laser guided bombs.

      Delete
    5. "JDAM"

      Who, other than you, is "blaming" JDAM for anything?

      Delete
    6. To clarify, I am a different anon from the one who is complaining that we stopped training with dumb bombs. He's also off base: we have never stopped training with unguided artillery. The bulk of artillery is unguided, because it's a volume area weapon.

      I should also note that PGMs are in fact safer for the force under fire that needs danger close CAS, because the pilots can lay the weapons with greater accuraccy and not fear that they'll hit you by accident, instead of the enemy that you were attacking.

      (Yes, there was the famous case of a JTAC calling an airstrike on himself, but that's on him for not checking his coordinates. Literally the same thing would have happened with unguided weapons. The stories I've heard from Vietnam...)

      Delete
    7. We really should have been using JDAM.more. it's literally our cheapest PGM. 25 grand a pop. Boeing makes 150 JDAMs a day, 54,750 JDAMs a year. JDAM is the one PGM we can afford to spend lavishly, especially in a permissive air defense environment.

      Delete
  14. I'm of two minds about this.

    1) This is good because its showing us our weaknesses.

    2) This is bad because its showing our enemies our weakness.

    Its also showing that like it or not people like Palmer Lucky are absolutely correct in that the old guard institutions can't fix this.

    We are in the same place Germany and Japan were prior to WW2. Exquisite wonder weapons aside we have no stamina. Hell we are worse.

    3) Trump much as I agree with him on some things he sees the world as a corporate man. He doesn't understand things outside that space and to many of his people are corporate people with the same view.

    Long story short we need to figure this shit out NOW not 10 years down the road. The time is up the price must be paid now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "sees the world as a corporate man"

      This is a potentially profound observation. I, too, believe he views the world through deals. After all, he sees the value in making deals (it's how he's lived his life and quite successfully) so wouldn't everyone else? He's willing to make war but he will always default back to deal-making. This, in addition to weapon inventories, may explain the pause in the war.

      Reality is that the non-western world doesn't care about deals. The old adage, might makes right, still applies and we need to recognize that.

      Delete
  15. Thank you for posting this.
    There are likely several obvious reasons why we have called a halt to the fighting and are now seeking a ceasefire.
    Shortages of precision munitions; waning domestic and international support for the war; concern for the retaliatory damage that Iran could inflict on the energy infrastructure of its neighbors; the potential for Iranian attacks on Saudi desalination plants, and alarm over the deteriorating economic situation across Europe and Africa are all worrisome and merit careful consideration.
    In my view all these concerns are overstated, and even if they’re not they should be ignored anyway.
    A ceasefire that left Iran as the regional hegemon, in de facto control of both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el Mandeb, with its financial assets unfrozen, able freely to export its oil to China and elsewhere and to further enrich itself by charging transit fees; an Iran able to rebuild its military and threaten and blackmail its wealthy but weak neighbors, would represent the most significant military, economic and geopolitical defeat that the United States has ever suffered.
    The damage to our credibility would be immense and irreparable, not just in Middle East but across the world; any such outcome should be completely out of the question.
    Iran probably can’t be defeated in the unconditional way that Japan and Germany were defeated, and there’s never going to be a surrender ceremony on board the deck of a carrier with DJT playing MacArthur.
    Recognizing that reality, our war aims therefore, should Iran not agree to our terms - which we should communicate publicly to their leadership - should be to utterly destroy the country as a viable political and economic entity, beyond all possibility of it being rebuilt and re-established. Iran should then allowed to fall into civil war and break up, with our assistance, along the lines of its Persian, Kurdish, Azeri and Baluchi ethnic divisions.
    At that point we should walk away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "...should be to utterly destroy the country as a viable political and economic entity... At that point we should walk away."

      Agreed. And after being so close, having them fairly defenseless, unable to do anything except take shots at their neighbors, it seems we stopped at exactly the wrong time. For whatever reason.
      This was an opportunity to reverse the historical course of how we handle things militarilly... that our punitive actions are serious and will be course-altering for those that receive them...but we failed, and now that history continues.

      Delete
  16. A short, interesting video about Iran's midget subs.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGspXolrAvI

    ReplyDelete
  17. For anyone interested in looking at ... a deployment of US land forces in Iran ... Substack ‘Operational Art of War’ . Link below.

    The original comment has been deleted as it provided no link and misrepresented the article. The article's author presents an interesting analysis of the various factors and options involved in a possible land invasion of Iran and concludes by presenting the best option for a successful assault.

    see, Invade Iran

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He does explain how difficult an invasion would be but ignores a key element. The USA would need a few years to quadruple its sealift to support such an operation.

      Delete
    2. "USA would need a few years to quadruple its sealift to support such an operation."

      I don't think that's correct. The USN, alone, has around 30 amphibious ships. We also have several pre-positioned ships. In addition, the US can call on several dozen merchant ships from various sources including MARAD, Military Sealift Command, and government requisitioning of merchant ships. This should be more than sufficient to support an operation of this size. It's not as if we'd be conquering all of Europe, as in WWII.

      Delete
    3. I would also note that the credibility of the author of the article is highly suspect. His background is listed as an unspecified staff officer. Given that he is now retired, he was most certainly part of the officer corps that was responsible for an almost endless series of bad decisions that resulted in an ill-prepared,, hollowed out military. Why I would give his opinion any credence, whatsoever, is a mystery. Worse, he's a lawyer which also leads me to wonder what type of staff position he held and how extensive his military expertise is.

      Delete
    4. In my experience of military JAGs, the Marine JAGs seem to have had more rounded experience vs their Army and Air Force counterparts, who were mostly direct commissions. It was bot uncommon to find a Marine JAG who'd been a line officer - the ur-example being David Grange, who was an infantry officer in Vietnam, retrained as a fighter pilot, and then became a JAG.

      Delete
    5. Great link - I don’t have the knowledge to comment on the writer’s credibility. His forecasts of ‘likely losses in blood and treasure exceeding the Gulf War and the War on Terror by an order of magnitude’, and ‘Korean War levels of risk and commitment’, if close to the truth would surely preclude a land invasion by our casualty averse military.

      Delete
    6. "His forecasts "

      Many/most of his forecasts have already proven to be widely pessimistic and inaccurate so that should say something about his credibility.

      Delete
  18. We have half the sealift as during the Iraq deployments. Google for the many articles and papers about this issue. Most of the ships we have in "reserve" are from that era, and most are not usable and in need of major repair. Here is one short article:

    https://www.bairdmaritime.com/security/naval/naval-auxiliary-support/opinion-the-dangerous-collapse-of-us-strategic-sealift-capacity

    The CNO recently said the MSC struggles just to support current operations in the Indian Ocean. Also note this area is more than twice the distance as Europe was during WWII.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is saying we have Normandy size cargo fleets or even Desert Storm levels (don’t know if that’s true or not) but an Iran operation would be a fraction of the size. The areas of strategic interest in Iran are fairly limited.

      This also isn’t like fighting the modern, well equipped, well trained German military or even Iraq’s army in the field. Iran’s military has been significantly reduced already.

      Also, if we made it clear we were there to eliminate the current regime and then leave, we’d probably get a great deal of popular support.

      Delete
  19. “It’s not as if we’d be conquering the whole of Europe as in World War Two”.
    Oh I dunno about that.
    In WW2 alongside the British, Canadians and our French - ahem - allies we deployed around 5.5 million troops across the ETO.
    France, Italy and Western Germany measures around 400,000 square miles. Iran measures around 50% bigger than that and its geography is better suited to defense than W.Europe was (lots of mountains etc).
    We can demolish the country from the air - why put boots on the ground?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Iran measures"

      And only a small fraction of that is of interest or potential value to us. If Iranian forces were, for example, to retreat into mountain defenses, that would eliminate them as relevant factors as well as isolate them from factories, resupply, food, and weapons. They'd just slowly starve or be could bomb them at our leisure. There are only a handful of areas we care about.

      In WWII, Germany had a large, well equipped, highly motivated, well trained military. Iran has little, if any, of that.

      So many people are so scared of war and casualties that they can't see reality. The same people who are now claiming that Iran still has a highly effective, undefeated military are ignoring the devastation we inflicted on them in just a matter of days in one of the most lop-sided battles in history. Our mistake is not finishing the job.

      Delete
    2. “….not finishing the job.”
      But what was the job?
      Regime change?
      If there had ever been an opportunity for that to happen it was back in June last year, and we won’t get another chance.
      But that doesn’t matter because Iran will never be a friendly state; it will always remain our adversary because our respective vital national interests are opposed and not aligned.
      This is the case regardless of whether Iran remains a clerical dictatorship, or becomes some kind of quasi-democracy, or reverts to being a secular autocracy as it was under the Shah.
      Iran will act rationally and assert those national interests using all the tools at its disposal.
      It will seek to keep potential enemies as far away as possible, and exercise hegemonic control over its wealthy but weak regional neighbors.
      It will rebuild its military strength and capabilities to insure that it can’t again be successfully attacked.
      It will use its oil wealth to expand and extend its influence around the world.
      And it will probably develop a nuclear weapon.
      For these reasons there can never be a peaceful settlement of differences between America, Israel and Iran.
      The Israelis understand this very clearly; we seem not to.

      Delete
    3. "But what was the job?"

      You see but do not see.

      You are impressively wrong about everything AND you answered your own question without even realizing you did so!

      What job? Well, you answered your own question by impressively listing all the components of the job: eliminate Iran's military and their ability to rebuild it, destroy its oil production capability if they won't cooperate, eliminate any possibility of developing nuclear weapons, and so on.

      "there can never be a peaceful settlement of differences between America, Israel and Iran."

      Wrong. There most certainly can be a peaceful arrangement. We did it with Japan, Germany, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. We merely have to keep killing their leaders one after another until we eventually, inevitably, find one who values his life and prosperity over terrorism and agrees to cooperate. Note: cooperate doesn't mean they have to like us. It just means they refrain from all the things you listed and that we don't want.

      Delete
    4. Yes, thank you; I should have added this corollary:
      “Finishing the job” should therefore be defined as being to completely, utterly and permanently destroy Iran’s ability to function as a viable unitary state at any and every level beyond all possibility of reconstruction, repair or reconstitution.
      More colloquially, we should settle their hash for good while we still have the ability to do so.

      Delete
  20. During the weeks before the war started, it was widely reported that military leaders had briefed the White House on their concerns about smart-munitions stockpiles in the event of an extended conflict. We might fairly blame past procurement decisions for that situation existing in the first place, but it was a known constraint going in.

    So, senior leadership either:
    1) hoped/wished a few weeks bombing would be enough to force Iran's surrender, and had no plan for what they would do if that didn't happen
    2) they had a plan for what they would do when stockpiles became critical, but subsequently jettisoned that plan for whatever political reason once that point was reached

    At best weapons stockpiles are a secondary concern, but the primary issue is the strategic decision-making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "During the weeks before the war started,"

      The weapons inventory shortages have been well known and documented for many, many years. Multiple administrations and sessions of Congress have had ample opportunity to do something about it and none have. To their credit, the Trump administration had begun ramping up production but little could be done in the brief time they had.

      "At best weapons stockpiles are a secondary concern"

      Any soldier or nation that has run short of weapons would beg to differ! When you run out of expendable munitions, it's a pretty major concern!

      Delete
    2. Absolutely a concern!! As such, I would be looking for strategic decision makers who pull out every possible stop in building up our stockpiles and production capacity - while in the near term, avoiding starting a conflict which would run down those stockpiles and land us in a stalemate where we hadn't achieved our main goals but couldn't risk pursuing the war further.

      Delete
    3. "avoiding starting a conflict which would run down those stockpiles"

      Sometimes circumstances force you into courses of action you might not want (Lee at Gettysburg). We don't know what the trigger event was for the strikes on Iran so we can't pass judgement on the wisdom of beginning the strikes.

      We also don't know whether weapon inventory levels are actually a factor in this pause. I've speculated that they MAY be but that's not a certainty. We may have paused for geopolitical reasons, for example, in which case, all the talk about it being irresponsible to have begun the attacks with insufficient inventories is moot.

      Until we know, definitively, why we started and why we paused, all we can do is speculate while keeping our minds open to other possibilities and factors.

      Delete
    4. Yes; those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.
      Nearly everything that’s been happening since the beginning of the war has been happening inside a black box. Every news report, and every comment from Iran or from Washington is just as likely to be intentionally misleading as it is to be true, and every threat or warning could be a bluff or a double bluff or a triple bluff.
      We just don’t know what’s been happening and probably we never will.


      Delete
    5. To say "who knows, maybe this would all makes perfect strategic sense if only we had the secret knowledge" strikes me as the sort of rationalization that is rarely entertained on this blog.

      Delete
    6. "To say "who knows, maybe this would all makes perfect strategic sense if only we had the secret knowledge"

      Who said that? As far as I can tell, no one did so who or what are you quoting?

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.