Wait, wait, wait
I thought that some brilliant retired US Senator said the US was going to carve a canal across Saudi Arabia specifically for US amphibious assaults using dozens of nuclear bombs
Did I get something wrong here?
It was all over the "news"...
@kim_harding Well written and the title had me thinking of these lyrics from Blasphemous Rumors by Depeche Mode:
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humour
And when I die, I expect to find him laughing.
@kim_harding “and is now selling tickets to the gift shop.”
I first read that as “grift shop”, and, yeah, that works.
Friday’s press gaggle. Barely exaggerated: at 12:03 PM, President Trump told reporters he wanted a ceasefire with Iran. At 12:05 he declared victory. At 12:07 he announced he was sending Marines. At 12:08 he said no boots on the ground. At 12:11 he said he did not want a ceasefire. At 12:16 he declared victory again. At 12:17 he asked for a ceasefire. At 12:23 he told NATO they were cowards. At 12:29 he said Iran was begging for a ceasefire. At 12:31 he said everything was perfect. At 12:36 he said $500 oil was a good thing. At 12:37 he demanded Iran open Hormuz. At 12:39 he said Hormuz was never closed. At 12:41 he said the US was not at war with Iran. At 12:42 he declared victory in Iran.
If I read the in a novel, I would laugh at the authors incredulous, non-sensical plot
@kim_harding
> The USS Gerald R. Ford, meanwhile, the most expensive warship in human history, is retreating to Crete. The official reason is a “laundry fire”. 266 consecutive days at sea, 28 days short of the Vietnam-era deployment record, and the crown jewel of the US Navy is fleeing the theatre, not because of being damaged in combat, not because missiles are flying around it… But because someone's skivvies got too hot.
This is either ignorant, or written in bad faith.
@kim_harding
The ship is going to port for maintenance *because* of those 266 consecutive days at sea.
It was long overdue, and when your maintenance is long overdue, shit starts to break. That happens to almost every machine. Nothing to make fun of.
If the author wants to make fun of sth, make fun of US not putting another carrier in the Gulf immediately after Ford left for Venezuela.
@poni @kim_harding
AFAIK its scheduled maintenance time was in the middle of the Special Maduro Operation.
Also, the US did not exactly choose when to start a war - AFAIU they were in a rush to start it while there's still a potential for protests in Iran.
It seems they're 1 carrier short - if they had one more, they could've sent it to the Gulf to replace Ford, and be able to intervene when the protests were happening, instead of doing that 1.5 months later.
@poni @kim_harding
Yeah, but I don't get why getting damaged in combat would be somehow more virtuous.
And in general, I don't like the surface-level mockery - it seems to imply that US has to be utterly incompetent to let those things happen, which I disagree with.
I think the US is pushing its luck to seize a once-in-a-decade opportunity.
Now, if someone were to argue that there was no chance this would succeed, and US should've known it from the start, that'd be another story.
@poni @kim_harding
right?
Yet the article somehow makes it sound like it would've been less worthy of mockery.
@kim_harding
If there was no prior planning whatsoever we'd be seeing far worse results.
Most countries have contingency plans for all kinds of wars, and regularly update them.
I think it's highly unlikely that US did not have a contingency plan for a war with Iran.
They probably didn't have a comprehensive plan titled "War with Iran in February 2026", because they likely didn't know the protests would break out in Iran until the protests broke out.
@kim_harding
Also, it's not the POTUS's job to make plans for military operations.
It's the Pentagon's job.
And the Pentagon probably came to the president and asked: "Here's as much of a plan as we could come up with, here are the risks, here are the benefits if we succeed. Is this a gamble you want to take?"
1/
If the Pentagon had every information needed to correctly predict the risks, and somehow predicted it wrong, then yeah, that's incompetence.
But what if Pentagon and POTUS knew exactly that this is what would be happening, and POTUS decided it's a price US is willing to pay?
That's a difference in how much POTUS values various things, or in risk tolerance.
A surface-level mockery won't help us tell these two apart.
2/2