"The Military Decline Since Desert Storm Is Both ..." Topic

…Physical and Mental

"Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was the high-water mark of U.S. military power. Precision missiles such as the Tomahawk proved devastating. A combination of electronic warfare and superior defensive avionics made Air Force and naval aircraft virtually invulnerable against the once-vaunted Soviet manufactured Iraqi air defense system. The M-1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles far outclassed the Iraqi T-72 tanks and BMP fighting vehicles of Saddam Hussein's Army. The Marine Corps was robust enough to field two corps-sized formations and a brigade-sized amphibious corps capable of an amphibious diversion that tied down several of Iraq's best divisions. The newly developed Patriot missile largely negated Iraq's SCUD threat. The result was a blitzkrieg victory that was accomplished quickly and with amazingly few casualties.

The hubris that resulted from that victory became a curse because it resulted in several assumptions that became conventional wisdom among politicians, the military, and society in general. Those false assumptions have directly resulted in the quagmire of Iran today. (RELATED: Trump Cannot End the Iran War by Simply Declaring Victory)

The first false assumption was that future wars would be quick and relatively bloodless from an American standpoint. The second was that the peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet Union would allow us to deconstruct much of the military-industrial capacity that had characterized the Cold War. A final assumption was that the Goldwater-Nichols military reform legislation of the late 1980s had contributed to the victory and was an unqualified success…"

link

Armand

I don't know about that.

The failure in Iran is not due entirely to the military not living up to the standard of Desert Storm. Desert Storm had a coalition built ahead of time. Desert Storm had many, many months of visible preparation instead of just seizing an opportunity for one strike and letting it slide into a full scale war. Dessert Storm had the willingness to commit ground forces and take control, instead of just shooting stuff up from afar and hoping things would magically fall into place. Dessert Storm had a cunning plan, whereas in Iran there is just the hope that somehow this government, whose people have been trying to overthrow it for years, would suddenly collapse. Desert Storm had a successful "decapitation", whereas the war with Iran took out some leaders and then… well…

Dessert Storm had a plan. The whole thing was choreographed. The war with Iran has never had a plan.

War is still politics by other means. The political dynamics and goals in Dessert Storm were carefully worked out. There is no political goal with Iran, just a hope.

I'm not equipped to discern if the US military is less capable now than thirty five years ago. But in my amateur opinion the problem here, as in Viet Nam and so many cases, does not lie with the military.

There was also a patience behind Desert Storm. We were prepared to take our time and do it right. Whereas, with this Iran conflict we were told it would be over in two week maybe four. Then told numerous times how we had won.

Spectator is a libertarian rag with a very pronounced agenda. And it comes through very strongly.

And comparing Desert Storm to the Iran conflict is like comparing the AWI to WWII. Two entirely different wars with two different opponents and with two different goals.

Desert Storm was with a normal political state. The Iran conflict is with a death cult theocratic state.

Desert Storm was a supposed response to a regional aggressor, while the Iran conflict is a defensive response to 45 years of attacks on the US itself. Different circus, different monkey.

So the basic premise of the article is flawed.

Desert Storm was fundamentally a conventional conflict in which one side beat a traditional if unequal opponent and that opponent yielded to the clear territorial goal of the victor. In Iran the initial goals of regime change and nuclear abandonment have morphed into opening Hormuz and still ostensibly nuclear abandonment with neither being tangible territorial goals but rather political and intangible in the sense that Iran can achieve peace only by agreeing to end activities. The US has demonstrated technical and logistical superiority while defeating/destroying the bulk of Iranian military capacity but, a nation the size of Iran is too big to hit everything and simply by not giving up and using the remaining 5-10% of missile/drone/mine capacity on occasion to hit civilian ships and targets can create significant economic and political pain to make this asymmetrical fight linger while the US spends money and stockpile while the Iranian citizenry suffers.

Stone +1

Stone +1

@mcKinstry

simply by not giving up and using the remaining 5-10% of missile/drone/mine capacity on occasion to hit civilian ships and targets can create significant economic and political pain to make this asymmetrical fight linger while the US spends money and stockpile while the Iranian citizenry suffers.

I don't disagree, which is why shooting your way down the leadership ladder seems to be the only recourse.

Thanks

Armand

So many factors to consideration in order to defend or attack the position of the article.
Desert Storm did prepare the battlefield for an extensive time prior to the devastating assault.
The soldiers are no longer serving. A new generation.Even tje command structure has changed including the RIF of combat command experience.
Different war with different political goals.
Live with the new challenges and fight the war

The U.S. Military Exits Iraq, Leaving Behind a Nation in Peril

link

Armand

Apples and Oranges in my opinion.

I would argue that overall power is a combination of military power, diplomatic influence and the power projected by adversaries.
To me it seems like the early 2010s was the height of US power. There was no dominant adversary at this point in time.

Since that time China has made significant strides with GDP approaching that of the US and their military capability rapidly increasing. Their global diplomatic/economic influence has also increased.

At some point we could potentially reach a transition phase of either equal global power between China and the US or even China achieving greater global power. If history teaches s anything it is that Empires come and Empires go. How that happens can vary significantly.

So to answer the question again, I see the height of US power in the early 2010s

US aircraft lost or damaged in Iran war nearly doubles in latest congressional report

link

Armand

I'm with Stone on this one.

@Tango01 from the article, "Drones account for most of the increase"