3 ms·

>As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support th

>As for controlling Hormuz, the US military absolutely could control Hormuz. I'm confident it's quite capable of it. It's that the US public wouldn't support the immense cost in lives and treasure it would take to do it, and maintain that control. This is like saying "I could easily afford a Ferrari. It's just that I wouldn't be able to make the interest payments on the loan". Military conquest is more than just guns.

thehappypm 2mo ago
The reason the US can’t take the strait is that the war is unpopular and the American people don’t want it to happen. The US military could absolutely 100% invade and take the street, but it would be extremely unpopular and very expensive.
- elendilm 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - stevenwoo 2mo ago
    The argument echoes similar speculation about the USA's 20 years in Vietnam, the "military was held back" despite killing more than a million southeast Asians in the attempt.
  - thehappypm 2mo ago
    It is public opinion that is keeping the US from using boots on the ground.
    - samrus 2mo ago
      And what prevented those boots on the ground from winning in vietnam?
      - thehappypm 2mo ago
        The objectives are wildly different. Vietnam is more like asking the question, could the US Military occupy all of Iran? Which I think the answer is essentially No, just like Vietnam. The strait is one small objective , and the US had lots of successes in Vietnam with capturing key strategic areas, they just couldn’t cover that into a successful occupation
    - elendilm 2mo ago
      Sure. Public opinion must also have signed the war reparations of 300 billion. Last I checked war reparations are paid by the losing side to the winning side. US military strength is air and naval forces. Not ground troops. They will get slaughtered if they go against Iran on the ground let alone Yemen. It's sad, the idiots who signs the deployment is signing the death warrant of the US ground troops. This is not Afghanistan.
mrguyorama 2mo ago
No, it's like saying "I can easily afford a ferrari but I won't be able to afford groceries for a year after that because I've emptied my savings account. The military might be capable of a ground invasion and succeeding. It would be Pyrrhic. Even if Iran was a genuine nuclear threat (I am not convinced at this point that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone if they had it), is it worth 500k dead Americans? There was never a path to victory that didn't involve ground troops. We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence. Previous administrations did not do this because the cost was well understood. There has never existed a military who could win this conflict without ground invasion. This was understood when this administration started it.
- nemothekid 2mo ago
  >We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence. My point is these two things are inseparable, and to conflate them is simply Call of Duty-esque military fantasy. It's a feel good war story that doesn't actually reflect the reality of actually winning a war. If the US military does not have the ability to hold, occupy, and install allied regime change, then the US military cannot win a war with Iran. You cannot separate the short term wins from the long term objectives. No one looks at Imperial Japan and says "they easily bombed pearl harbor, but due to policy failures they couldn't keep control of the South West Pacific theatre. The US winning WW2 wasn't just dropping the nukes and high fives. There was rebuilding the Japanese nation, aligned to the US, becoming a long term ally. This is no different than Afghanistan. Future humans aren't going to look back and say "the US easily controlled Afghanistan for 12 years, and then just returned to the Taliban". The lessons learned will be the US failed to hold Afghanistan and the Taliban returned to power and it was a military failure. No matter how you dress it up, I can't afford the ferrari.
  - Gud 2mo ago
    This is very different from Afghanistan. The USA and its allies could sustain the Afghanistan occupation indefinitely, but chose not to(prematurely, in my opinion). In Afghanistan, the west chose to lose, but victory was possible. We were(we, I was there in 2010) winning hearts and minds of the younger generation but abandoned them. Another Donald victory. Iran is an impossible situation.

thehappypm 2mo ago

The reason the US can’t take the strait is that the war is unpopular and the American people don’t want it to happen. The US military could absolutely 100% invade and take the street, but it would be extremely unpopular and very expensive.

elendilm 2mo ago
[flagged]
- stevenwoo 2mo ago
  The argument echoes similar speculation about the USA's 20 years in Vietnam, the "military was held back" despite killing more than a million southeast Asians in the attempt.
- thehappypm 2mo ago
  It is public opinion that is keeping the US from using boots on the ground.
  - samrus 2mo ago
    And what prevented those boots on the ground from winning in vietnam?
    - thehappypm 2mo ago
      The objectives are wildly different. Vietnam is more like asking the question, could the US Military occupy all of Iran? Which I think the answer is essentially No, just like Vietnam. The strait is one small objective , and the US had lots of successes in Vietnam with capturing key strategic areas, they just couldn’t cover that into a successful occupation
  - elendilm 2mo ago
    Sure. Public opinion must also have signed the war reparations of 300 billion. Last I checked war reparations are paid by the losing side to the winning side. US military strength is air and naval forces. Not ground troops. They will get slaughtered if they go against Iran on the ground let alone Yemen. It's sad, the idiots who signs the deployment is signing the death warrant of the US ground troops. This is not Afghanistan.

mrguyorama 2mo ago

No, it's like saying "I can easily afford a ferrari but I won't be able to afford groceries for a year after that because I've emptied my savings account. The military might be capable of a ground invasion and succeeding. It would be Pyrrhic. Even if Iran was a genuine nuclear threat (I am not convinced at this point that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone if they had it), is it worth 500k dead Americans? There was never a path to victory that didn't involve ground troops. We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence. Previous administrations did not do this because the cost was well understood. There has never existed a military who could win this conflict without ground invasion. This was understood when this administration started it.

nemothekid 2mo ago
>We aren't losing in Iran because of military incompetence, but policy incompetence. My point is these two things are inseparable, and to conflate them is simply Call of Duty-esque military fantasy. It's a feel good war story that doesn't actually reflect the reality of actually winning a war. If the US military does not have the ability to hold, occupy, and install allied regime change, then the US military cannot win a war with Iran. You cannot separate the short term wins from the long term objectives. No one looks at Imperial Japan and says "they easily bombed pearl harbor, but due to policy failures they couldn't keep control of the South West Pacific theatre. The US winning WW2 wasn't just dropping the nukes and high fives. There was rebuilding the Japanese nation, aligned to the US, becoming a long term ally. This is no different than Afghanistan. Future humans aren't going to look back and say "the US easily controlled Afghanistan for 12 years, and then just returned to the Taliban". The lessons learned will be the US failed to hold Afghanistan and the Taliban returned to power and it was a military failure. No matter how you dress it up, I can't afford the ferrari.
- Gud 2mo ago
  This is very different from Afghanistan. The USA and its allies could sustain the Afghanistan occupation indefinitely, but chose not to(prematurely, in my opinion). In Afghanistan, the west chose to lose, but victory was possible. We were(we, I was there in 2010) winning hearts and minds of the younger generation but abandoned them. Another Donald victory. Iran is an impossible situation.