US sends additional troops to Middle East.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The U.S. is sending troops to the Middle East in response to the surge in violence between Israel and Hezbollah and as the region teeters on the edge of an all-out war.

The Pentagon announced on Monday that 'additional' service members would be deployed to join the 40,000 already stationed in the region along with a dozen warships and fighter jet squadrons.

Israeli forces have ramped up their airstrikes deep inside Lebanon and the State Department has warned all Americans to leave as the risk of conflict spirals to levels not seen in years.


There's a lot of debate elsewhere that this is part of a routine deployment. That is only partly true. Yes, elements of the 101st are rotating out the 10th Mountain Division. However, the remainder is an escalation and their are more than support elements being deployed. According to open sources, they are deploying combat elements that will do more than peace keep.

a reply to: QuixoticNinja

I think the deployment is mainly to discourage other regional actors from getting involved.

We’ve already rotated an aircraft carrier and the addition of forces shows we’re ready should Iran get involved.

I imagine one of the concerns is that Iran could still retaliate for the bomb in Tehran, lack of a ceasefire in Gaza that was expected some time ago, and a major jump in escalations in Lebanon.

If you asked me a month ago, I’d have been very concerned this war was going to get a lot hotter. But now I think Israel may have hit hezbollah in such a way they may not be able to retaliate. Their leadership has been hit hard and I’m sure everyone is paranoid with communications, so it will take longer to reorganize.

As for Iran, the new president appears to be much more moderate, which isn’t hugely impactful since his position is more figure head. But his communication can at least be indicative of the climate there. Not to mention, Hezbollah was considered the tip of the spear for wearing out the iron dome. If they’re neutralized or heavily weakened, Iran may not be able to keep good leverage.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: QuixoticNinja

In the name of baal we thank the USA for their endless stream of souls. Their sacrifice will not be remebered...

While we’ve wasted a lot of time, resources, and any perceived good will from the global community in the Middle East… We didn’t take many casualties if you look at the context in the scale of war we’ve been engaged in for decades.

That’s not to minimize our losses, for any of them on the Iraq side are a hard loss considering that war wasn’t needed.

But endless souls seems a bit dramatic. Russia and Ukraine have both lost scores more in just a few years compared to our decades of occupying two different nations, one of whom used to have the fourth largest military (Iraq).

The way the US and Israel conducts war is very different than a lot of conventional warfare. We focus more on air superiority and asymmetrical aspects.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We have a systemic incompetence problem running rampant throughout the military and our entire government.

US Navy Oiler Runs Aground, Forcing Carrier Strike Group to Scramble for Fuel

Compounding the problem is the fact that the Big Horn is the only oiler the Navy has in the Middle East. One shipowner told gCaptain that the Navy is scrambling to find a commercial oil tanker to take its place and deliver jet fuel to the USS Abraham Lincoln.

a reply to: watchitburn

Logistics has been what made our dominance.

I’m wondering if that’s a speed bump, or something that will be hugely consequential. I’m leaning towards the former though.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

Logistics has been what made our dominance.

I’m wondering if that’s a speed bump, or something that will be hugely consequential. I’m leaning towards the former though.

Our navy and military have other issues too, isn't enlistment at historic lows?

In these troubled times, we need to have a well-manned, highly-trained force instead we are falling back on our technological and financial superiority. If Russia/Ukraine were to flare up or China move on Taiwan while our Navy is stuck in the Middle East we would have logistical issues from the getgo.

www.navytimes.com...

The Navy’s manning shortages are curbing the service’s ability to repair its ships while at sea, according to a watchdog report released Monday.

Sixty-three percent of executive officers — a ship’s second-in-command — surveyed reported that insufficient manning made it “moderately to extremely difficult to complete repairs while underway,” according to a Government Accountability Office report released Monday.

At-sea basic maintenance and repairs are critical to ensuring a ship can carry out its mission, according to the GAO.

But Monday’s report, based on interviews of sailors and leaders across the fleet, reveals that basic maintenance duties and repairs are hindered not only by manning shortages, but also by inaccurate Navy guidelines and substandard training.

As of late last year, the Navy was lacking nearly 14,000 enlisted sailors to keep its aircraft carriers, surface ships and attack submarines properly manned, according to the GAO.

a reply to: putnam6

At most, I think we’ve had 2 carrier groups in the ME at any given time.

We have 12 so that we can fight three fronts with groups of three while three are at port.

So if we are falling behind, I imagine two fronts could still be comfortably done.

That said, this is assuming we’re alone. I don’t think China will flair up any time soon as all their growth is fed by the west. Alienating themselves would only set them back.

As for Russia, their navy is a shell of what it once was. They would be largely ground based, and I think Poland could probably hold them back by themselves, luckily we’d never have to test that prediction as all of NATO would be involved.

I think there’s always things we could improve on. But I don’t see a scenario the US is militarily in distress sans nukes.

Edit: I think I’m off on the three front policy for our carrier groups. I was going off memory, but I can’t find the source for that. Leaving for posterity.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

At most, I think we’ve had 2 carrier groups in the ME at any given time.

We have 12 so that we can fight three fronts with groups of three while three are at port.

So if we are falling behind, I imagine two fronts could still be comfortably done.

That said, this is assuming we’re alone. I don’t think China will flair up any time soon as all their growth is fed by the west. Alienating themselves would only set them back.

As for Russia, their navy is a shell of what it once was. They would be largely ground based, and I think Poland could probably hold them back by themselves, luckily we’d never have to test that prediction as all of NATO would be involved.

I think there’s always things we could improve on. But I don’t see a scenario the US is militarily in distress sans nukes.

Edit: I think I’m off on the three front policy for our carrier groups. I was going off memory, but I can’t find the source for that. Leaving for posterity.

The problem with the Carrier Strike Group concept is the fact that they are really only capable of bullying non-nuclear nations. The Russians and Chinese can airburst a tactical nuke over a carrier group render it completely combat ineffective, even if it doesn't obliterate it.

Moreover, they are extremely vulnerable to submarines, regardless of what bull we pump out from the pro-MIC side.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

At most, I think we’ve had 2 carrier groups in the ME at any given time.

We have 12 so that we can fight three fronts with groups of three while three are at port.

So if we are falling behind, I imagine two fronts could still be comfortably done.

That said, this is assuming we’re alone. I don’t think China will flair up any time soon as all their growth is fed by the west. Alienating themselves would only set them back.

As for Russia, their navy is a shell of what it once was. They would be largely ground based, and I think Poland could probably hold them back by themselves, luckily we’d never have to test that prediction as all of NATO would be involved.

I think there’s always things we could improve on. But I don’t see a scenario the US is militarily in distress sans nukes.

Edit: I think I’m off on the three front policy for our carrier groups. I was going off memory, but I can’t find the source for that. Leaving for posterity.

Yeah but that's how one gets perpetual war(s) when you don't have enough conventional forces, and everybody knows nuclear deterrence is a last resort.

We should have a minimum of Desert Storm capabilities where you hit with such and overwhelming force, it's over quickly and easily. Our enemies have learned the American weakness is long-term conflicts the public has a general disdain for these, this all the need to do is hold out, see Vietnam and to a certain extent Afghanistan and Iraq Gulf Storm 2 "Dick's War"

So we have nothing but continued flare-ups of hot spots... great for the MIC but it can be a net negative for other industries.

US Military Will Intervene On Behalf Of Israel If Iran Enters Lebanon Fray, UN Analyst Warns

www.zerohedge.com...

See? When these "leaders" come and address our legislative body, we get a speech (if you watch), and our .gov representatives are TOLD to send bodies, bullets and billions. "YES, SIR!! 🫡🫡"
Congress and the WH are on standby just awaiting instructions.

Get ready to kiss your sons and daughters goodbye to go support and fight the most idiotic conflict in the world. Just to rip the bandaid off because I'm short on time, your children being sacrificed will MEAN NOTHING.

Just like all the dead from Afghanistan. Those poor veterans are only left with the pride of fighting for their buddies as the rest is all BS.

a reply to: QuixoticNinja

This can't be true. Kamala told us at the debate that our troops weren't engaged anywhere on the planet!

What a lying POS

a reply to: underpass61

Are they "engaged"?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ask them

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: underpass61

Are they "engaged"?

It was a lie when she said it!

www.usatoday.co... m/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/11/trump-harris-debate-us-troops-combat-zones/75171915007/

a reply to: Moon68

Link doesn't work for me?

a reply to: Moon68

Fixed your link

www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: PorkChop96

Thanks. A lie then!

a reply to: QuixoticNinja

American logistics is what has won wars.

Even if they took the carrier groups out, we can still mobilize huge forces via airlift. Hell, we can have an operational Burger King anywhere on the planet to keep troop morale up.

And if they did hurt our naval forces, it’s not like we couldn’t do the same to them. Then who has air superiority?