4 ways America's gambit has failed

IMO this shows that the people who can make the cheapest weapons with the most destructive power wins.

Somehow we lost sight of that and went to ever more expensive "precision" weapons when a simple dumb bomb would do the same thing
 
IMO this shows that the people who can make the cheapest weapons with the most destructive power wins.

Somehow we lost sight of that and went to ever more expensive "precision" weapons when a simple dumb bomb would do the same thing
For it is not by the numbers of the combatants but by their orderly array and their bravery that prowess in war is wont to be measured...Procopius

The problem for Iran is their troops are shoddily trained. Bravery is no substitute for drilled competence. The Russians have long followed your advice. They've lost more wars than they win and the price for them is always jaw droppingly, insanely, high. Rome became a mighty empire not because Roman soldiers had better weapons, but because they were better trained and drilled.
 
For it is not by the numbers of the combatants but by their orderly array and their bravery that prowess in war is wont to be measured...Procopius

The problem for Iran is their troops are shoddily trained. Bravery is no substitute for drilled competence. The Russians have long followed your advice. They've lost more wars than they win and the price for them is always jaw droppingly, insanely, high. Rome became a mighty empire not because Roman soldiers had better weapons, but because they were better trained and drilled.
If the US military were to use dumb bombs and only save precision bombs for certain missions what would change about the US military training?
 
If the US military were to use dumb bombs and only save precision bombs for certain missions what would change about the US military training?
Nothing except some of those precision weapons would become either obsolete or expired and then need expensive rework to make them usable again.
 
On the contrary, I believe that America's international leadership has strengthened. The US has demonstrated its willingness to use force to maintain its imperial status, no matter how costly it may seem. All small and medium-sized countries in the world, except for China and Russia, now face a situation where if the US decides to destroy your country, it can do so directly, and you will receive no protection unless you have some kind of alliance with China—but currently only North Korea can be assured of China's protection. All small and medium-sized countries, in order to survive, must bow down to the US. I believe that in the next 20 years, the US will reshape the landscape of international relations through a series of wars, leveraging its military power.
View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW6pj7wAnJU/?igsh=MWVvbGxkZ2xiNnF6Nw==
 

1. Losing the influence war in the Middle East​

2. Taking US eyes off other strategic goals​

3. Disproportionate economic fallout​

4. Loss of global leadership​




View: https://x.com/i/status/2042998300882931892
 


We follow the law and the Quran. Islam is not a religion of peace in the way ignorant (or dishonest) infidels mischaracterize it. Islam literally means voluntary submission or surrender to the will of Allah, and the concept is that true submission brings inner peace and security. The Quran does not explicitly call Islam "the religion of peace" or use that phrasing anywhere. It describes itself as the "straight path," the "religion of truth," or the final revelation, It also includes verses on defensive and offensive fighting (e.g., the "sword verse" in 9:5, rules for jihad in 9:29, etc.), which classical Islamic jurisprudence (across major schools) interpreted as permitting expansionist warfare.

The specific phrase was popularized (and misapplied in its common usage) by George W. Bush and other Western leaders after the events of 11 September 2001.
 
The U.S. has long struggled to balance competing objectives in the Middle East. During the Cold War, this meant limiting the Soviet Union’s influence in the region, while contending with the development of nuclear weapons by two troublesome allies, Israel and Pakistan.

By the 2020s, the priorities in Washington were aimed at restricting the influence of the U.S.’s great power rivals; China, and to a lesser degree Russia, in the Middle East.

Despite this, under Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, China and Russia have increased their footprint in the region through a variety of formal alliances and informal measures.

For Russia, this took the form of alignment with Iran.

China increased its diplomatic profile in the Middle East, notably by acting as a mediator as Saudi Arabia and Iran restored diplomatic ties in 2023.

The irony of the latest Iran war is that it follows a period in which circumstances were unfavorable to Russian and Chinese aims of increasing their influence in the Middle East.

With Washington perceived as an increasingly unreliable protector, the Gulf states may seek greater security and economic cooperation elsewhere.
 
Back
Top