4 ms·
The US military bombing Houthis is like squishing an ant, they have no air defense and no risk of meaningful counter attack. Understand they literally don't ca
by ty6853 2y ago
The US military bombing Houthis is like squishing an ant, they have no air defense and no risk of meaningful counter attack.
Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should. It's an exercise to continue justifying military budgets and contractor and manufacturer enrichment. Any secrecy at best just is there to hide how thinly veiled the reasoning is, which doesn't need much bother because anyone open to finding out can quickly ascertain. It's just not supposed to be said openly for diplomatic and political reasons.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoNot only could they obviously evacuate their targets, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack, but it's also literally not true they have no air defenses. They've successfully shot down multiple MQ-9 Reapers very recently (one of the drones used in this attack). https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/houthi-strikes-on-us-mq9-reaper-drones/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/houthi-stri...
- ty6853 2y agoOk, de minimis air defenses, per the nauseating HN pedantry. The Yemenis have been bombed by drones since at least Obama's extrajudicial citizen murder. How many have they shot down, less than one a year on average? >, wasting tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars and dozens of civilian lives on an unsuccessful attack, A mistake would be to think this isn't success. The point is to spend lots of money to justify and enrich the bloated defense sector.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoNow just imagine an entire cabinet filled with this type of motivated reasoning! Frightening indeed.
- ty6853 2y agoIt's been filled with this kind of reasoning since at least the Iraq War and probably longer. That half of trillion has to be spent somewhere and the cabinets always need to manufacture a reason. That the campaign fails and more 'need' done is not even necessarily a drawback.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoIt's not true. But if it is, it doesn't matter. And if it matters, what about [my unrelated gripes]! None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal. From your initial comment: > [the Houthis] have no air defense - False > [there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False > Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care > nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms
- ty6853 2y ago> [the Houthis] have no air defense - False True. They have since Obama shot down less than what, one drone a year? This is no air defense and your own evidence confirms it. At best it serves as a rare annoyance but is strategically defenseless. You are simply wrong. >there is] no risk of meaningful counter attack — False True. They have not once strategically gained a victory on the US nor do they have means to do so. >Understand they literally don't care about opsec — False, the Signal chat referred to some files being transmitted highside (i.e. properly), so clearly they literally do care True. They invite journalists and use poorly vetted signal channels. >nor is there much reason why they should — False, unless you regard "mitigating the risk of American equipment and potentially pilots getting shot down" as "not much reason," in which case we just disagree on axioms True, even with leaks the best they can do is extraordinarily rarely shoot down non piloted drones. >None of this is relevant to whether it was proper, legal, or risky to plan an attack via Signal. I did not claim that it was.... My thesis is the Houthis are the next easy way to unload massive defense funds with little strategic risk. Their lack of air defenses and no need for opsec informs the cabinet's laxadasical treatment.
- John23832 2y agoExcept that the Houthis have actually shot down US assets. https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2024/09/16/houthi-rebels-claim-they-shot-down-another-us-mq-9-reaper-drone/ https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2024/09/16/ho... So opesec, against all enemies, is important. Not just for diplomatic and political reasons. For OPERATIONAL (the op in opsec) reasons.
- ty6853 2y agoTheir extraordinarily rare shoot down have not served as a defense against our bombing campaigns. It is operationally meaningless.
- Arnt 2y agoI think that is correct, but how can defense against a meaningless campaign be meaningful? Perhaps you can explain the operational meaning of the bombing campaign.
- adammarples 2y agoIt's not an adequate defence but you should concede that a serious military do not actually want their best pilots and multilmillion dollar war fighting planes shot down? It is at the very least embarrassing.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoAnd not using expiring messages on Signal is important also for record retention requirements.
- dragontamer 2y agoBut Clinton's email servers. /s
- nailer 2y agoThey weren’t an official channel like Signal is.
- dragontamer 2y agoWill those Signal messages be stored in accordance to the Federal Records Act?
- itishappy 2y agoOpSec is a "when we feel like it" sorta deal? Vibe national security practices?
- lm28469 2y ago> Understand they literally don't care about opsec, nor is there much reason why they should. yeah no that's not how any of this works. You don't get to chose what's going through official channels and what's going through signal based on how you feel about the target capabilities
- ty6853 2y agoI'm evaluating why they don't seem to care, not justifying it.
- red-iron-pine 2y agobecause they could be held accountable. because it makes it easy to stovepipe sensitive information to Moscow, Beijing, et al. because they're lazy and stupid. and they're not justifying it because they don't have to, since there are not any meaningful consequences -- like jail or dismissal.
- nailer 2y agoSignal is an official channel, and has been since the Biden administration.
- lm28469 2y agoOfficial channel for military operations ? I very much doubt it
- nailer 2y agoYou’re welcome to doubt it and the DoD have their own channels for internal communications but the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in 2024 issued guidance suggesting Signal as a “best practice” for highly targeted government officials, so it’s used in situations that cut across many departments as well as external organisations like this. People mistakenly believing that the issue is using Signal rather than simply accidentally adding a journalist is one of the major hallmarks of this case.
- lesuorac 2y agoThis kind of thinking is how the US spend a decade in Vietnam only to give up.