"Turns out US troops were injured in Iranian missile attack" Topic

It appears that a few US troops were injured in the Iranian missile attacks.

11 had been sent to Germany previously and more are being sent to Germany with potential concussion related injuries.

link

link

It was reported as such in the UK press a few days without too much detail.

Old news. I'll take injuries over deaths. The type of injuries (concussions) the soldiers are being checked for can take time to identify. Plus, with what we've learned about concussions in the last 10 years, it's good that the soldiers are being checked out.

I don't think anyone ever claimed there were no injuries.

"I don't think anyone ever claimed there were no injuries."

Unfortunately, history/the internet may remember differently..

YouTube link

Duck

I stand pedantically corrected.

Although I read in one of the posted links above that they were "potential" injuries and being treated on an "outpatient" basis. No loss of life or limb; so in the bigger picture of what could have been, there were no injuries.

"Pedantically"

I don't think this word means what means what you think it means.

Well, no one has ever accused me of being an English major. Let me try again. The Pres said there were no injuries. And he was correct that there were no serious injuries. No one died. No one lost a limb or was paralyzed. Did a few get a little scuffed up and get concussions; yep sounds like it. Are those technically injuries? Maybe, but certainly nothing to escalate to war. The Pres made the right call in saying "no injuries".

I'm not quite sure what constitutes "an English major" – some level of education rather than a military rank? – but

Lichtenberg:" The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted"

BTW so glad someone caught my PB reference.

"The navy still struggles with ships and crew readiness, the air force still struggles with serviceability. Many programs are still years behind schedule. Etc etc.".

The previous guy gutted the military, and it takes some time to recover from that. Another wore out a lot of our kit over/in the Balkans.

USAFpilot is right about delivery on promises, which scares the hell out of many.

The previous guy gutted the military, and it takes some time to recover from that. Another wore out a lot of our kit over/in the Balkans.

The US military drawdown started in 1990 under George Bush as part of the peace dividend. And you ignore Bush Jnr's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan that did far more damage to the US military's capabilities than Clinton's involvement in the Balkans.

All US governments since 1990 have helped gut military capability.

There's a reason your aerial tankers and large chunk of your bomber fleet is from Eisenhower-era, jet trainers are from LBJ-era and fighter aircraft are from the the Reagan/Bush Snr and Clinton era (A-10/F-15C/Ds are 1980s, most F-16s are 1990s).

The same applies to the navy.

The US military didn't help itself either with ridiculously expensive convoluted over complicated programs that only benefit defence companies. Examples include F-35 (itself the result of cutbacks to navy programs and F-22), Gerald Ford carrier class, LCS, Zumwalt destroyers, RAH-66 Commanche, MV-22 Osprey, EFV, OICW etc etc. All the while they ignored the less glamorous projects to maintain capabilities such as improving ship yard capacity, simplifying naval air maintenance processes etc etc.

The Balkans was peacekeeping.

Afghanistan and Iraq were wars undertaken for military considerations.

There is a big difference.

The F-35, LCS, and Zumwalts should have been canceled.

Seems as if the Osprey is doing good work, after a slow, and concerning start.

Not sure where the Commanche is, but looked like a good program last time I saw reference to it. OICW is needed, and a pity it and similar systems have been canceled.