In reply to: Three American service members killed and many wounded.... posted by Marine Domer
I'll add my thoughts, though can't answer all of them. Note that all of this is common knowledge and none from classified sources.
We know now that the three KIAs were from a Georgia reserve Engineer unit stationed out of Fort Moore (formerly Benning). We are relying heavily on our Reserve forces while also running our active Army ragged (as I've mentioned--higher OPTEMPO now than during the Iraq/Afghanistan surges).
I suspect we're in that location (Tower 22 and al Tanf) for several reasons, the primary being intelligence. Additionally, there's still a humanitarian camp nearby (once 100K but now around 7500K), it provides access into Syria, and it impedes a known land logistics corridor. I would guess it is protected by US or contract forces on the gates and C-RAM through the air. Likely artillery support and aerial QRF as well. C-RAM is very effective, but the enemy either got lucky or picked up a good TTP to mirror a friendly drone.
Broadly, we are in Iraq/NE Syria/Jordan as part of the Defeat-ISIS coalition. While an incredibly successful coaltion during the fighting phase, what to do with the refugees (many who are still rabidly ISIS) and prisoners has been much more difficult. There is strong belief that if the coalition leaves the area Turkish/Russian/Syrian/Kurdish fighting will allow ISIS to reconstitute utilizing those refugees and prisoners. So we remain.
I believe Iran is at war with us and has been for some time. Their goal being to expel us from the region (they will always keep an eye on the Sunnis, obviously). The Iranians aren't fools so will push right up to the point our Commander in Chief does something about it...that point varying constantly of course. The current administration isn't the first to allow Iran to kill US Soldiers with no/very little response. Some administrations even rewarded them.
I do not believe we have any appetite for war with Iran. Maybe rightly so. If we did go to war, I would think the only real chance of success would be a broad, slowly built, coalition (ala Gulf War) with a limited political objective (regime change). I don't think we'll get that coalition (unless Iran detonates a nuke or invades somewhere), I don't think we have the internal political will, I don't think we can raise the forces necessary without a draft, and I think we're too broke.
A good portion of our leadership has an affinity for Iran that boggles the mind. A good portion of our leadership believes any meaningful response will mean WWIII. So we'll do something, but probably not much. We're saying so openly now. Our Soldiers will keep dying, probably in greater numbers. We'll watch passively as international shipping lanes are impeded.
As you can tell I am not optimistic, but I've been surprised before (Soleimani).
I don’t understand the point of still having troops in that region. For what? To be targets?
to hear a convincing explanation that recognizes, as does BeijingIrish, how unready we are to launch yet another half-baked and impulsive and reactive military venture -- that, after we declare victory, leaves us with yet another festering occupation and exposure, in a part of the world, where we have repeatedly shown that, for all our unmatched firepower, we get played by the locals, who have their own agendas that may not match ours. That "uncontested land bridge linking Iran to the eastern Mediterranean" mentioned in another reply is the direct result of our having removed Iran's biggest enemy and obstacle to greater influence in the Fertile Crescent. Did we anticipate that particular result? It seems not.
Part of Trump's popularity traces back to his candor about the Iraq invasion. That was and is a shock to the GOP establishment that forgot the party's deep roots in what I will call, knowing it is an inadequate category, isolationism.
41 got the ball rolling, though, no doubt about it.
Pretty sure it has less to do with who is leading and more to do with how we don't fight wars so good.
We tried exteicating ourselves from the area and ISIS filled the power vacuum. We have SF assets aiding numerous governments in combating extremist groups in the Middle East and Africa. This goes back quite some time.
Additionally without our help you'd risk Iran running roughshod over the middle east and seizing oil assets from Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Despite this and Afganistan we're averaging fewer deaths in combat operations under Biden than under Trump. There's just more visibility now.
In terms of Trump/MAGA foreign policy I'm reminded of Hofstadter talking about the Paranoid style in the post war era. They (McCartheyites/isolationist republicans) wanted us out of NATO/foreign entanglements but also wanted to be maximally anti communist and go to war with the USSR/use nukes, invade China etc. The philosophy was incoherent. You can't both escalate against Iran and pull out of the area. You can't be anti Chinese and abandon our treaty allies/be friends with Russia.
Ditto for enabling the Shiite Crescent to connect its wings.
Interesting now to watch our next Middle Eastern war germinate.
Thr Iraq war has to be one of the bigger own goals in our history.
Had we not elected to fight it I do wonder how the Arab Spring would have played out. I imagine we'd have gotten involved in stabilizing the region.
the Iraq war, released three years ago this month.) I've linked an NPR interview by Mary Louise Kelly with Ret. Col. Frank Sobchak, a co-author of the report. The very first think Sobchak says makes you want to run screaming from the room shouting WHAT THE F DID THEY THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?
...The goal for many years was to take down the top guys, e.g., Jeff Fort. So what happened once that tactical approach worked and got the top guys into prison? The mass of little guys fractured into a bunch of undisciplined, freewheeling smaller gangs without the former central coordination of the big gangs. The City had not thought strategically about how to handle that, and we are still living with the shoot-em-up consequences.
past 10 years. Apparently they made a change to their laws to allow them in cars and trucks 10 years ago. During that decade there have been 30,000 guns stolen from cars or trucks. I am sure no small number of those guns have made their way to Chicago.
The most appalling part of the story is this quote from the lead sponsor.
"Listen, freedom comes with some dangers. That's one of the things that made our country great is that we put the power in people's hands"
them from populist Islamism: Saddam, Assad, Mubarak...an unsavory crowd to say the least. That's one reason, I'm sure, why the Vatican opposed our invasion of Iraq: they knew it would not lead to better conditions for Iraqi Christians. And it sure as hell hasn't.
republican party talking about bombing Iran. I'm sure they've thought of all the consequences and have plans for the aftermath...no one ever learns.
In an editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal, Sorin Adam Matei, an associate professor of research at Purdue University’s Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy, argues that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its subsequent actions demand that Russian aggression be met with sharp, consistent, and measured force (“The Ukraine War Calls for a Revival of Deterrence Theory”, August 23, 2023, pg. A17).
Matei goes on to advocate a return to tit-for-tat, i.e., actions deriving from game theory principles which are rooted in “cold math”. He points to the success had by the US during the Cold War when principles of deterrence responded to game theory—mathematical models used to predict the actions of hostile foes. He notes that early on, success derived from adherence to a simple calculus: for every major action, there must be an immediate and commensurate reaction. Matei goes on to say that, from 1989 on, the US neglected the requirement for immediate pushback, thus allowing Russia to successfully employ a “zero determinant” approach which relies upon cheating and confusing its opponents. He adds that this approach works especially well against people like us who believe in following the rules.
In this case, what is a commensurate response (forget about immediate—that horse is out of the barn)? Bombing Iran. Bomb what? Sand? What could we bomb to ensure that such an attack will not recur?
It seems to me that one way to ensure that this does not happen again is to withdraw from the region. What good does bombing Iran do? Can the mullahs prevent proxies, e.g., Hezbollah affiliates, from attacking us if they are intent on causing us harm?
Furthermore, I’d suggest that if we get to the point where we determine that we must bomb Iran, we should use strategic weapons. If I sound like Dr. Strangelove, good. Maybe it’s time to go back to Herman Kahn and think about the unthinkable. What we’re doing at present is nothing more than chingando perro. Why expend the lives of air crews, Marines, or others? Maybe we let the Israelis do it—we fly EW missions over the Gulf, they follow and deliver ordnance. Otherwise, what are the Israelis good for?
Maybe it’s because I’m old and tired. Maybe it’s because I've watched too many US Government-sponsored fiascos. Whatever it is, I’ve reached a point where my fund of patience and idealism is exhausted. I just don’t believe it is worth sacrificing American lives in quixotic ventures. Furthermore, I am not convinced there is anything we can do in the short-term to materially influence the inexorable course of the political evolution in the region. Do we belong in the middle of a sectarian struggle? Or do we stand by and watch until it burns out? Fully cognizant of the risks and the consequences, I say, let them fight it out.
To stop Saddam from grabbing Kuwait. Without US aid, could the Sunni powers stop Iran from seizing power in majority Shia Iraq, and the oil fields in Kuwait/Saudi Arabia? How would the US deal with and Iran that controls OPEC and is friendly with China? Would we be able to stand aside when Iran uses that oil wealth to attack Israel?
Overlooking a refugee camp housing 15,000 people in northern Jordan, the
secret outpost of Tower 22 on the border with Iraq and Syria has long been
strategically important to the US.
Little is publicly known about the military base, but its location just 12 miles from the better known Al-Tanf US garrison in south-eastern Syria suggests it provides logistical support – as well as border security for Jordan.
Officially, the Jordanian government does not even acknowledge Tower 22’s
existence. Yet Al-Tanf has been a key US base in the fight against the remnants of Islamic State (IS) in the region and repeatedly targeted by militia groups. Until Sunday’s drone attack, Tower 22 had not warranted the same attention.
As well as being just across the border from Tower 22, Al-Tanf garrison is also located on a vital road in south-eastern Syria that can link Iranian-backed forces from Tehran all the way to southern Lebanon – and Israel’s doorstep.
Now, the US base – which some claim holds a signals intelligence facility –
enables troops to disrupt what could otherwise be an uncontested land bridge linking Iran to the eastern Mediterranean.
Around 350 US Army and Air Force troops are thought to be stationed at Tower 22 – specializing in engineering, aviation, security and logistics – but it is unclear what type of weapons are kept there or the strength of its defenses.