Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/10/2026 10:16:13 PM PDT by Mount Athos
Mr. Vance, who opposed the war from the outset and was charged by President Trump with helping to end the conflict, wanted the commanders’ individual judgments, in their own words, before they were consolidated into a Pentagon view.
...commanders were blunt. They were most worried about their depleted stocks of Patriot interceptors. The war had also exhausted the theater’s supplies of the Army Tactical Missile Systems, along with stores of the Precision Strike Missiles. Stocks of critical munitions were the lowest they had ever seen.
Mr. Vance came away from some of his conversations with deep concerns about the overall strategy and the prospects for success. The assessments made clear the extraordinary amount of pain the Iranian government was prepared to endure in its fight for survival, and the limited supply of U.S. defensive weapons available to block Iran’s retaliatory strikes, or to deal with threats elsewhere.
The president was hearing more in his briefings from Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the strain on U.S. stockpiles and the resilience of Iranian forces, which Mr. Trump initially found difficult to believe.
Mr. Vance’s opposition to the war was no secret inside the White House. In the weeks leading up to Feb. 28, he argued against the operation in meetings in the Oval Office and Situation Room, at times to Mr. Trump’s irritation, according to officials who discussed the matter with the president. But once Mr. Trump made up his mind, Mr. Vance defended the decision in public.
Mr. Trump had not seriously contemplated the war lasting long enough to strain U.S. stockpiles. He was fresh off the success of the quick military strike to capture Venezuela’s leader. Before launching the war in Iran, he had privately expected the government there to collapse within days.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The New York Slimes. 🙄
So, perhaps the stockpiles were a little on the light side. What was the Biden Administration doing to deepen the supply? Since the NYT will oppose any supplementals to restock, what is their point? They had no problem cheerleading for false diplomatic appeasement of the Iranians for 40+ years.
The Simes forgot how to publish news many years ago. Now every word is an editorial, mostly Anti-Trump and everything Republican.
And they actually. charge for that rag.
Bkmk
Thanks. If Vance did oppose it is a positive for him.
The Neww York Slimes....at it yet again.
They want to hope our enemies do not believe this “news.”It will bring an attack which we will have to answer with nukes.
The article has been archived in readable view.
“Thanks. If Vance did oppose it is a positive for him.”
Because a nuclear Iran, holding a good deal of the world’s oil supplies hostage, while killing thousands each year in terror attacks, is a good thing?
No — because Vance is smart enough to see that: (1) the U.S. military action wasn’t going to accomplish anything to alter the scenario you describe, and (2) he knew the economic and political fallout would be disastrous.
This is from the Tehran Times...
I guess it depends on how high you want to stack it at the NY Slimes. Can’t trust one word they write.
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.