Is the naive, militarily challenged, foreign policy neophyte, Trump starting a war with Iran?

There is nothing better for advancement in a military career than war, and there is nothing better for the post military careers of retired senior officers than a job with a defense contractor, consulting firm or any number of other beltway bandit companies.

 

But there is nothing worse than getting killed in the process. Twenty years in the military and I saw it all. There were a few who thought that war might advance their career, but the overwhelming majority did not want a war and most did not want to get sent to a war zone.

I was assigned to Blytheville AFB, Arkansas when they lost three B-52 aircraft over N Vietnam with most of the crew members killed or captured. It is hard to imagine anything worse happening to a small air force base where almost everyone knows almost everyone else.. Most military members of aware of the reality of war and want nothing to do with it.

 

That is a nice thought, but I do not think it is true, especially for senior officers who lead from their rear.

Those who do not want to make the military a career are of course far less likely to want war.

 

Leading from the rear does not get them the promotion you are talking about. If it is going to make any difference, it requires that ribbon bar that says he was there. That picture with all those ribbons is part of the promotion folder.

 

Iran started this war a long time ago. Nuke the rat-btch

 

Protecting our interests, yes. Doing something stupid is what I am referring to and trump is good at stupid.

 

It’s sad watching Dems openly support Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror. The dnc is simply the party of treason

 

But war brings a great opportunity for advancement of military officers ABOVE those who have been trudging forward for years during peacetime. In other words for most generals, an actual war brings forth the serious chance of lower ranking officers leap frogging over them due to actual combat performance.

 

And it did. One reason, both are Shi'a.

 

Who are you talking about? You didn't say.

 

".You are on the attack." I am? I asked some questions. If you formed some conclusions based on those questions, don't attribute them to me. They are your conclusions.

I wrote that Iran may be responsible for the attacks ... twice.

 

The Dems

 

If that were true.... why is it our business?
Are we the world policeman?

 

Does that mean you are in favor of allowing Iran to attack anyone they want to in the world as long as it is not us?

 

Look up Kimmel and Short for two good examples of how far you can rise in the military from the rear before it all hits the fan.

 

Did you ever meet a field grade officer who knew he was incompetent?

Kimmel and Short, 3 stars, never figured it out even after the rest of the world knew exactly what they were.

 

When the world decides it is a problem, i presume they will let us know
But as of this moment, the tankers were not our tankers, and the relevant countries involved (japan and norway) have not asked for our assistance. If we act without a call for action, it looks like we are using this event as an excuse to pursue our own interests

 

No. But we are the worlds only superpower. And having power means having responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is keeping SLOCs open.

 

Is it not open?
If it becomes an acknowledged world problem.... they will let us know
Until then we can express our concerns and say we are consulting with other world leaders

But, lets say some faction of the republican guard wants to provoke a confrontation.... i do not to cascade into war
Lets say that this is another version of the tonkin gulf... i do not want war

If there is to be a war.... i want to be dang sure that the rest of the world does not shrug and say it is our problem

 

What if they do? If a war is justified it is justified no matter what the rest of the world thinks or does.

 

Two people is not a good example. Some people rise regardless and some people do not do so good. However, war tends to put the military in cycles. During buildups, everyone tends to do fairly well. After it ends, they have a RIF (Reduction in Force) and a lot of good people are forced out

 

On second thought, we should stay out of it. I am going to buy some Exon stock. The oil will stop flowing out of the region and since the US is a net explorer, I will make a fortune as the gas and oil prices skyrocket.

 

I thought of Kimmel and Short because I just watched "December 7th" - finally aired for the first time on TCM. There are many other examples, David Hackworth used to call them "perfumed princes".

Of course there are many officers with no combat experience who eventually perform well in war, and countless seasoned veterans who screw up.

 

Even when war is justified it is a good idea to think carefully about the end result. What will the US gain from war with Iran? What can we lose?

Has the US gained anything from nearly constant warfare since our last clear victory in 1945 - unless you count Grenada and nutmeg.

 

WWII did some strange things. During WWII, there were many full colonels in the Air Force who had only been in the Air Force for a two or three years. They had leadership qualities and before long they were moved up to full colonel wing commander positions.

I entered the Air Force in 1959. That was fourteen years after the end of WWII. A lot of those colonels were still around as full colonels. They had over fifteen years time in grade. But, it was like I said at the time, if you are going stall out on promotions, a full colonel was a good rank to do it.