4 ms·

What does "victory" or "defeat" actually entail here? It's not as if the US risks any territory?

by zahlman 8mo ago

aucisson_masque 8mo ago
Victory or defeat as in war goal. Trump war goal are to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities, and to change the Iranian government. If he succeed, victory. Otherwise, defeat.
- conception 8mo ago
  I think his war goal was the change the headlines away from constant evidence of child sex trafficking. Victory I guess.
- tokai 7mo ago
  This is so naive and uninformed.
  - aucisson_masque 7mo ago
    You convinced me !
CommenterPerson 8mo ago
"If the US doesn't win, it loses. if Iran doesn't lose, it wins" .. per [John] on Krugman's substack.
- orwin 7mo ago
  War can't be won by everyone, but it can absolutely be lost by all concerned parties, even those who didn't participate.
carefree-bob 8mo ago
These are very jingoist terms focused more on domestic political reactions than anything happening on the ground. All conflicts, with the exception of genocidal or total war style conflicts - end with some kind of settlement, in which each side makes concessions, and then tries to sell it as a victory to their domestic audience. This will be no different, which is why people are already lining up to spin everything and argue about who is the real winner or loser. That they have no problem expoliting the conflict for domestic political gain makes it clear that no one takes this war very seriously. If there was a real winner or loser, no one would need to argue about it, it would be clear to everyone, since the loser would be under occupation, and that's not going to happen here, neither to the US, nor to Iran. This entire war is two sides shooting missiles and bombs at each other from a safe distance.
- komali2 8mo ago
  > safe distance Iranian people are being killed, so no. Cynically if you mean Iranian leadership, they're also being killed, so no. American leadership and the Americans living in the seat of imperialism, sure.
  - carefree-bob 8mo ago
    Sure when Iran is being bombed, that is not a safe distance when it comes to receiving fire. But there are also US, Israeli, Kuwaitis, mariners being hit by Iranian missiles. The proportions are not the same, but this isn't a situation of only one side landing blows. Iran is also landing blows and putting up a fight. But the point is that the missiles are being shot from a distance. There is no invasion. When Iran hit Dimona or Kuwait, it wasn't sending troops there, it was firing off long range drones and missiles. I never claimed the war has zero casualties, but I very much doubt the number of casualties will be even within an order of magnitude of a full scale ground invasion. It will be in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
A massive failure could blunt or slow their attempts to seize Cuba, Greenland and Canada. On the other hand an inadvertant success, like Venezuela, could accelerate those plans.

What does "victory" or "defeat" actually entail here? It's not as if the US risks any territory?

by zahlman 8mo ago

What does "victory" or "defeat" actually entail here? It's not as if the US risks any territory?

Victory or defeat as in war goal. Trump war goal are to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities, and to change the Iranian government. If he succeed, victory. Otherwise, defeat.

conception 8mo ago
I think his war goal was the change the headlines away from constant evidence of child sex trafficking. Victory I guess.
tokai 7mo ago
This is so naive and uninformed.
- aucisson_masque 7mo ago
  You convinced me !

CommenterPerson 8mo ago

"If the US doesn't win, it loses. if Iran doesn't lose, it wins" .. per [John] on Krugman's substack.

orwin 7mo ago
War can't be won by everyone, but it can absolutely be lost by all concerned parties, even those who didn't participate.

carefree-bob 8mo ago

These are very jingoist terms focused more on domestic political reactions than anything happening on the ground. All conflicts, with the exception of genocidal or total war style conflicts - end with some kind of settlement, in which each side makes concessions, and then tries to sell it as a victory to their domestic audience. This will be no different, which is why people are already lining up to spin everything and argue about who is the real winner or loser. That they have no problem expoliting the conflict for domestic political gain makes it clear that no one takes this war very seriously. If there was a real winner or loser, no one would need to argue about it, it would be clear to everyone, since the loser would be under occupation, and that's not going to happen here, neither to the US, nor to Iran. This entire war is two sides shooting missiles and bombs at each other from a safe distance.

komali2 8mo ago
> safe distance Iranian people are being killed, so no. Cynically if you mean Iranian leadership, they're also being killed, so no. American leadership and the Americans living in the seat of imperialism, sure.
- carefree-bob 8mo ago
  Sure when Iran is being bombed, that is not a safe distance when it comes to receiving fire. But there are also US, Israeli, Kuwaitis, mariners being hit by Iranian missiles. The proportions are not the same, but this isn't a situation of only one side landing blows. Iran is also landing blows and putting up a fight. But the point is that the missiles are being shot from a distance. There is no invasion. When Iran hit Dimona or Kuwait, it wasn't sending troops there, it was firing off long range drones and missiles. I never claimed the war has zero casualties, but I very much doubt the number of casualties will be even within an order of magnitude of a full scale ground invasion. It will be in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands.

ZeroGravitas 7mo ago

A massive failure could blunt or slow their attempts to seize Cuba, Greenland and Canada. On the other hand an inadvertant success, like Venezuela, could accelerate those plans.