3 ms·

Not every war can be fought from air, there needs to be soldiers on the ground. In fight against ISIS, the Iraqi amry, Shia Militias, Kurds and others were gro

by i67vw3 6mo ago

Not every war can be fought from air, there needs to be soldiers on the ground. In fight against ISIS, the Iraqi amry, Shia Militias, Kurds and others were ground forces while Allies were in Air. In Afghanistan & Gulf War, US forces were on ground. But in these "conflict", no party is ready to send ground forces, ground forces to stop the air drones, ship drones etc. So the "blockade" will probably continue.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> the "blockade" will probably continue The part that makes the Strait weird is no belligerent wants it entirely closed. (Maybe Israel.) Iran wants to export. And America wants exports. So you get this weird stalemate where America doesn’t want to actually blockade Iran, while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait.
- average_r_user 6mo ago
  [dead]
- arkensaw 6mo ago
  > while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait. Uhm, why would America shut the strait?
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > why would America shut the strait? To deny Iran oil revenue.
- pjc50 6mo ago
  America isn't getting exports from Iran, until recently they were sanctioned. More of a problem is that the biggest buyer of Iranian oil is China. I don't think that getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China would be an improvement.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > America isn't getting exports from Iran Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > America isn't getting exports from Iran Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for. > getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China China isn’t getting into a war with America over the Strait.
    - stale2002 6mo ago
      > Single market. Not really, they were getting discounted oil prices previously that they are no longer able to get. Also, they are a large importer of oil compared to the US, which is an exporter. They have much more to lose from high oil prices than we do.
mrweasel 6mo ago
There was an article somewhere a few days ago, where the author raised the question: Why buy tanks in a world of drone warfare. Something like that. I see this as much the same "problem". Drones can't really take or hold territory, they can only deny access to it. At some point you need people and armoured vehicles on the ground. The US is facing the same issue in Iran. You can bomb all you like, but a bomber, like a drone, can't hold land. Iran can launch drones and missiles towards the Strait of Hormuz from the entire country, denying anyone access, but also without being able to hold it. Because they went in without a plan, or even a goal really, the US administration denied itself, and everyone else, access to the strait. The military leadership probably knew this. If not they could have asked Ukraine if this was a sound idea, given their knowledge and experience with Iranian drone technology.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
bluegatty 6mo ago
There is no party even capable of doing it. The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small country, at the same time as there would be 'all out war' with Iran, which would be backed by China and to a lesser extent Russia, and whereupon an invasion would provide them with millions of determined fighters. We're talking 'Gulf War' scale of operation against a much bigger, more capable country, and of forces willing to fight. And the US doesn't even have anywhere to do it from. Assuming a Gulf country would host an invasion force - extremely unlikely - there's no magical way for US to cross the Gulf with large numbers of forces, as we can't get capitol ships in there in the first place. There's no amphibious capability at the scale necessary on the Arabian Sea. Literally just the logistics of large scale landings is almost impossible. That leaves the Kuwait / Iran border, and maybe something a bit wider. And then fight through the mountains across the Gulf? The thought is absurd, it's a 'major campaign theatre' - of which US forces were theoretically capable of fighting in two at once, but that's not pragmatic. That's 'wartime economy' kind of thing. It's possible but unlikely that 10K marines and paratroopers are going to be able to do much, because it's very risky and likely won't accomplish much.
- cyanydeez 6mo ago
  At some point, there's going to be a dumbenough general to try to paratrooper their way in. They've spent the past year trying to cull "dysloyal" troops, so at some point, the delusion will surface is an absurdly dumb attempt. Hard to see it any other way.
  - bluegatty 6mo ago
    US forces are not partisan and not culled, they're mostly the same entity they were last year, but with a few Generals asked to retire. (Edit: highly professional I might add. There are quirks, and obvious hints of 'nationalist bias' - but that's to be expected. They are not the 'cultural problem' we see on the news - at least not for now. They lean 'normal') The current Joint Chiefs is a bit obsequious but he's not crazy. These are very sane people, for the most part. They may be pressed to do something risky, like land troops at Kharg island, but not completely suicidal. That 'risk' may entail getting a number of soldiers captured, but that's not on the extreme side of military failure, it's mostly geopolitical failure. It would certainly end DJT as a popular movement. Having a ship hit, or a few soldiers captured - and this sounds morose - is normal. That's why they exist. It's the political fallout that's deadly. They won't do anything to crazy. The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that. It's very unpopular and DJT has populist instinct as well - he's trying to 'find a way out'.

by i67vw3 6mo ago

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> the "blockade" will probably continue The part that makes the Strait weird is no belligerent wants it entirely closed. (Maybe Israel.) Iran wants to export. And America wants exports. So you get this weird stalemate where America doesn’t want to actually blockade Iran, while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait.

average_r_user 6mo ago
[dead]
arkensaw 6mo ago
> while Iran seems to do just enough to keep America from actually shutting the Strait. Uhm, why would America shut the strait?
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > why would America shut the strait? To deny Iran oil revenue.
pjc50 6mo ago
America isn't getting exports from Iran, until recently they were sanctioned. More of a problem is that the biggest buyer of Iranian oil is China. I don't think that getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China would be an improvement.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > America isn't getting exports from Iran Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > America isn't getting exports from Iran Single market. Every barrel China buys from Iran is a barrel it doesn’t scour the global markets for. > getting out of the war with Iran by starting a war with China China isn’t getting into a war with America over the Strait.
  - stale2002 6mo ago
    > Single market. Not really, they were getting discounted oil prices previously that they are no longer able to get. Also, they are a large importer of oil compared to the US, which is an exporter. They have much more to lose from high oil prices than we do.

mrweasel 6mo ago

There was an article somewhere a few days ago, where the author raised the question: Why buy tanks in a world of drone warfare. Something like that. I see this as much the same "problem". Drones can't really take or hold territory, they can only deny access to it. At some point you need people and armoured vehicles on the ground. The US is facing the same issue in Iran. You can bomb all you like, but a bomber, like a drone, can't hold land. Iran can launch drones and missiles towards the Strait of Hormuz from the entire country, denying anyone access, but also without being able to hold it. Because they went in without a plan, or even a goal really, the US administration denied itself, and everyone else, access to the strait. The military leadership probably knew this. If not they could have asked Ukraine if this was a sound idea, given their knowledge and experience with Iranian drone technology.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

bluegatty 6mo ago

There is no party even capable of doing it. The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small country, at the same time as there would be 'all out war' with Iran, which would be backed by China and to a lesser extent Russia, and whereupon an invasion would provide them with millions of determined fighters. We're talking 'Gulf War' scale of operation against a much bigger, more capable country, and of forces willing to fight. And the US doesn't even have anywhere to do it from. Assuming a Gulf country would host an invasion force - extremely unlikely - there's no magical way for US to cross the Gulf with large numbers of forces, as we can't get capitol ships in there in the first place. There's no amphibious capability at the scale necessary on the Arabian Sea. Literally just the logistics of large scale landings is almost impossible. That leaves the Kuwait / Iran border, and maybe something a bit wider. And then fight through the mountains across the Gulf? The thought is absurd, it's a 'major campaign theatre' - of which US forces were theoretically capable of fighting in two at once, but that's not pragmatic. That's 'wartime economy' kind of thing. It's possible but unlikely that 10K marines and paratroopers are going to be able to do much, because it's very risky and likely won't accomplish much.

cyanydeez 6mo ago
At some point, there's going to be a dumbenough general to try to paratrooper their way in. They've spent the past year trying to cull "dysloyal" troops, so at some point, the delusion will surface is an absurdly dumb attempt. Hard to see it any other way.
- bluegatty 6mo ago
  US forces are not partisan and not culled, they're mostly the same entity they were last year, but with a few Generals asked to retire. (Edit: highly professional I might add. There are quirks, and obvious hints of 'nationalist bias' - but that's to be expected. They are not the 'cultural problem' we see on the news - at least not for now. They lean 'normal') The current Joint Chiefs is a bit obsequious but he's not crazy. These are very sane people, for the most part. They may be pressed to do something risky, like land troops at Kharg island, but not completely suicidal. That 'risk' may entail getting a number of soldiers captured, but that's not on the extreme side of military failure, it's mostly geopolitical failure. It would certainly end DJT as a popular movement. Having a ship hit, or a few soldiers captured - and this sounds morose - is normal. That's why they exist. It's the political fallout that's deadly. They won't do anything to crazy. The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that. It's very unpopular and DJT has populist instinct as well - he's trying to 'find a way out'.