Posted on 06/17/2025 5:13:49 AM PDT by Twotone
~So much for the G7. The war? Well, strange as it may seem on the 24/7 hamster wheel, my view hasn't changed since last week: I am in favour of Israel's victory over Iran - just as the region's Sunni monarchies are. However, I am opposed to any direct American participation because the United States is the most incompetent warmonger on the planet.
If that comes as news, well, you haven't been paying attention - since VJ Day.
Hilarious headline in today's Spectator:
Why is the US so reluctant to fight Iran?
Short answer: because it hasn't won anything that matters in living memory. Ask the 2003 anti-Saddam resistance, or the 2001 anti-Taliban Afghans. If it weren't for us, you'd be speaking Russian, ha-ha! Oh, wait, in eastern Ukraine, they are!!! Cue the corpsing.
I wish my friend Pete Hegseth all the best in his efforts, but ultimately the Pentagon needs to be razed and the ground salted, and the chiefs of staff moved to a room above a hair salon in a Cleveland strip mall with a budget that's a thousandth of what it presently is.
The inability to use forty per cent of global military spending to accomplish any strategic national objective is a disgrace. It can't all be going on Thoroughly Modern Milley's medals budget, can it?
~Re the above, here's the takeaway, from a panel I did with the late Bernard Lewis nearly twenty years ago:
I was on a panel with the great Bernard Lewis a couple of years ago - actually six or seven years ago - and Bernard said that the danger here is that America risks being seen as harmless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
Now why’s he gotta bring Cleveland into it?
We don’t lack the ability to crush our enemies.
We lack the will to do so.
And that’s a very big problem.
L
A big problem is mission creep. Now the military is tasked with humanitarian missions and nation building so much that it impairs their primary focus of moving fast and breaking things.
CC
I’m more bullish on the Pentagon than Mark is, especially if Trump can purge the Obama/Biden generals. The larger issue is the State Department. Our military can win wars, we just don’t know what to do after we’ve won them. The problem is exacerbated by electing Democrat presidents with their America last foreign policies.
It is that very point which is angering me incessantly this week.
Milktoast Milley and Lloyd Austin pretty much said it all.
“ Our military can win wars, we just don’t know what to do after we’ve won them.”
I say we walk away and let them clean themselves up.
No more “nation building, especially not in the ME. Smash them to pieces and just walk away. Screw the Pottery Barn theory.
L
A battle is won through the will, the way, the weather, and the terrain.
Three out of four are clearly in the US Military’s court. We have the way, the weather doesn’t much matter any more, and we control the high ground and logistics.
We are weak in the will. And in most cases, that is OK. We are a country of kind people for the most part. We do not fight wars to achieve subjugation.
Our problem is that once we destroy our enemies we try to convert them into “us.” But we do that half-assed. And that is our failure.
Our wars must be clearly defined with specific goals: Stop Iran from exporting terror to the rest of the world, for example. We should not care for a second about killing civilians or taking territory. If they wish to worship a moon-god, that is up to them. If they want insane mullahs telling them how to dress, that is up to them.
As long as they keep that crap within their own borders, its not our problem.
But American egos are huge. We cannot help ourselves.
If the staff at the Pentagon actually fought our enemies, gunfire and smoke would fill the hallways of the Pentagon.
He’s not really correct.
$1 trillion a year pays for a system of global governance. I giant global surveillance, public security, and police-force
Sending guys to break down doors in bad neighborhoods is only one specific role, which Steyn is referring to.
The Pentagon + + can read everyone’s mail, listen to their telephone calls, watch them from space, even nudge people to hold some beliefs over others on social media. We’re pretty good at that. It also supports a lot of jobs at HQ
The biggest problem with America is that it’s filled with filthy woke degenerate democrats.
Remove the rats and America will be great again.
Likely the most that might happen is that we remove rats/lefties from positions of power, responsibility and authority. They must be made a sideshow to things...sort of like the Freak Shows on the county fair midways in 50’s. If you wanted to observe them and cringe, you paid your entry fee and watched them until you had enough.
Your post is correct—as far as it goes.
It is just missing one critical piece—the political power of defense contractors.
Their interests do not coincide with the national interest.
Their goal is raking in the cash on never-ending conflicts around the world.
The problem has never been at the Pentagon. If the political will at the WH does not want to conduct a war to actually completely defeat the enemy, holding nothing at all back from doing it, then the truncated mission the Pentagon gets is a political matter, not a military one.
Case in point:
(1) In WWII, would the political leaders have told the Pentagon - no you cannot go bomb the sources of the arms that are firing at you, in Europe or in the Pacific? No.
(2) But in Iraq, when American troops were being killed by IEDs and other arms supplied to the militias in Iraq by Iran, did we go take out those factories in Iran? No. Politics, not the Pentagon.
When American goes to war as in WWII - throwing everything including the kitchen sink at an effort to demand and reach total unconditional surrender of the foe, it wins. When it pretends to fight otherwise it reaches either defeat or inconclusive ends. That’s politics, not the Pentagon.
Mark should stick to movie reviews and not ridiculous anti Pentagon drivel
“ The problem has never been at the Pentagon. If the political will at the WH does not want to conduct a war to actually completely defeat the enemy, holding nothing at all back from doing it, then the truncated mission the Pentagon gets is a political matter, not a military one.”
Ding, ding, ding…..we have a winner. The Pentagon follows orders from the political wings of government. Politicians dictate how the Pentagon fights, not the Pentagon itself. Since Vietnam, our political establishment has become paralyzed by not willingly engaging in operations that might generate significant American casualties. Even Iraq & Afghanistan tactics were focused on not risking casualties (American & civilian) instead of crushing the enemy. Of course minimizing friendly casualties should always be a priority but sometimes it cannot be the top priority. US Grant, Eisenhower and MacArthur all knew that.
I am about to get in trouble. Is there a parallel to our loss of will to actually fight a total war and the rise of women in politics? I know a lot of hard charging females in the military. Some tough as nails. But what happens when they are in charge and in political leadership positions? Is it coincidence or is the rise of female leaders in politics and the military a contributing factor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.