President Donald Trump

What about heaven's door?

Of course. Large militaries are by far the most inefficient organizations in the world. The only reason one wins is because the other is even worse.

But losing a battle isn't losing a war. If the initial skirmish doesn't achieve capitulation, it's all about resupply. It's like with Ukraine. Despite holding off Russia initially, if we weren't resupplying them it would be Russia by now.

Now war game it.

I just had to search for "Hunter"

Its probably more than 10-15 tbh

Mostly you mentioning his laptop

Yet you are completely crickets now

I'd say "interesting" but its not. Its entirely ****ing predictable

Because you are a clown who lacks basic principles

I don't know what your point is?

The Biden's try to hide their corruption.

The Trump's are openly corrupt.

There's not really much to uncover.

“At least he pees on my face where I can see it and not the back of my shoe where I can’t!”

I doxxed myself years ago.

Anyone visiting San Clemente can PM me and we can arrange a coffee date.

in all seriousness, you should call tlc about getting your own show

They don't know where this conflict is headed, which is why no goal is stated. What we can guarantee is that wherever it ends up, they will claim it was the plan.

Of course, on the strategic and political level, nobody really knows where this conflict is headed. This is part of the reason why so many actors are hesitant about involvement. Only on the tactical level can you make some guesses, but even that is hard for outsiders, since everything is opaque and the public statements from the involved parties are not trustworthy.

Thanks.

I kinda already have a "show": I stream chess live on twitch sometimes. (Some VOD's still viewable.)

I talked to a guy once who had a show on A&E for a few seasons. It only paid $50K per year.

Awesome story

Comments from a hardcore republican

"This has to be one of the dumst things I have ever seen."

'Dumst' doesn't even begin to describe it, my friend!

"I don't want any more of thiis non sensen"

I agree, dude, thiis non sensen gotta stop!

I admire someone who tells it like it is!!

(I assume Coordi posted this to show that hardcore Republicans are nearly illiterate. Point well taken.)

I think I'm more likely to receive a disappearance fee: 50K if I promise to stay in my house and stay off all media.

I have tried to hold back on definitive statements about the war, but I would say that I recognize some of the takes in that post.

Defense and protection from the smaller and more easily deployable weapons through proxies seem to be spotty, some of the intelligence used for targets is up to ten years old and there seems to be reluctance to make statements as to what the tactical and strategic goals are. Very predictable events in the geopolitical centre of the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz, seems to have been badly planned for.

They also seems to have been calculating on the IRGC and its proxies to have been largely commanded top-down, and that strikes at leadership would paralyze the organization. However, the IRGC is not a very transparent organization, and what we think of the nature of its relationship with the regime is more speculation than fact. There have always been another idea: That is in itself a political and religious powerplayer that puts clear demands on political and religious leadership. Such an organization void of leadership would quickly fill that role itself, which is likely what we are seeing now. This has been a somewhat alien concept in western countries for the last few centuries, because governments of old learned their lesson from being hostage to soldier and officer opinions. Thus these days we tend to forget about it. A good case study is "the new model army" from the British civil war.

My guess is that the initial plan when naval task forces were sent to conduct a smaller and more precise operation of limited scope. When that scope broadened due to political change of heart, logistics was not sufficiently up to par and nor was intelligence. That doesn't mean the Iranian regime (or its replacement) leads happy lives right now, but they're still there.

Of course, none of this means that Iran will be able to gain meaningful tactical victories. Its capacities are fragmented, economy is in shambles and logistics for any large scale efforts will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. However, it got munitions in spades, proxies to deliver them by and opponents who are probably not all that keen to get boots on the ground. That complicates strategic victory.

An important variable is where this supposed uprising that the US will support through the Kurds go. In historical terms, such efforts rank on a scale from "Bay of Pigs" to "Oman desert war" (during the Dhafor rebellion). If the US wants a quick victory, you really need to avoid the former.

sources: trustmebro

As usual, t_d seems like the only person here who is even remotely qualified to comment on military strategy.

Thank you. Let us put emphasis on remotely, because as always I must caveat that I am a layman, and in this particular case there is very limited available information - so it is very much a "trustmebro", as Weeez put it. CNN now has reporters on the ground in Iran, however it is on government VISA and their movements will likely be controlled. So, we'll have to see what information shines through.

To continue my last post somewhat, I was especially curious about musings about a Kurdish incursion, so I did some research.

On the border to Iraq, people from PAK (Kurdistan Freedom Party) have fairly recently stated that they will not enter Iran until skies are clear and central weapon depots destroyed, while other report talk about some skirmish actions. So, pinch of salt in place we can surmise that IRGC is neither grounded nor disarmed. Though whether "clear the skies" refers to drones and missiles, or aircraft and helicopters I don't know.

There are also other Kurdish groups, and there have talks about them forming a coalition or already having formed one, depending on who you ask. Still, this is a fragmented lot, many with very opposing ideologies. The fate of the US-supported Kurds in Syria who were abandoned twice is likely also a consideration, as is the fallout if their efforts fail to help dislodge the regime or the regime is replaced by something just as bad for them. Also, expect Turkey to raise a fuzz on this issue. Still, from an intelligence perspective it probably a tantalizing prospect, since they represent pretty much the only organized resistance to the regime.

I've tried looking up the numbers peshmarga (kurdish fighters) available, but it is hard to come by. The numbers do not look very large overall and based on the calls for support, we're talking maybe 3000 - 4000 fighters with a very optimistic estimate. Now, properly trained, equipped and supported with intelligence, such a force can still wreak havoc. However, based on the calls for support I suspect foreign equipment is not yet in place, nor intelligence sharing. Should such a plan come to fruition, there is also the question of whether there is willingness to embed advisors.

Would the Kurds really want to take on Iran when most likely they'll just be marginalized again when all is said and done? Think they would need some promise of sovereign land with Turkey signing off on it.

I understand. I don't think your interpretation of military developments is necessarily reliable or accurate. I just think you are more likely than anyone else here to be seeing accurately through the fog on military stuff.

t_d,

I was reading an article this morning about Trump's proposal to provide a military escort to commercial ships that are willing to traverse the Strait of Hormuz.

I have several questions. Do you believe that a military escort would be sufficiently effective right now to ensure safe passage? If Iranian leadership agreed to allow safe passage as part of a larger cease fire, would you trust that promise if you were a commercial ship operating without a military escort? To your point about decentralization, do you believe that Iranian leadership has enough control over the Iranian military (and military proxies) to uphold that sort of agreement even it has every intention of doing so?

I played Stratego a lot as a kid, so maybe my insights on the war might prove enlightening.

Great game. I play it with my 6 year old now. He'll beat me soon.

You think I’m making up a republican from a discord?

K