4 ms·
Ok, 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 m
by ty6853 2y ago
Ok, 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.
- sorcerer-mar 2y agoI rest my case
- ty6853 2y agoYour case is predicated on the assumption that national security is a goal, and therefore highly flawed, as that is only the idealized goal of our military sector. Soldiers are largely brainwashed and lied to about this, which often perpetuates this thinking, as there may be some feeling somehow these indictments strike their core rather than where the real blame belongs which is in the high level orchestrators.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago