672
USS Lincoln wasn't resupplied because Hegseth 'hid' that Iran destroyed main U.S. base: Rohde (www.ms.now)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

President Trump continues to say that Iran wants to make a deal to end the war and that the U.S. has control over the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the president downplayed concerns about the conditions aboard the USS Lincoln. MS NOW Senior National Security Reporter David Rohde and New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker join Stephanie Ruhle with more details and analysis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Even before the bronze age, armies often used lightly armoured scouts who could move quickly and quietly.

I don't think the lightly armoured HMMWVs that were supplied were accidentally lacking armour, and that the soldiers were fixing a problem with them that the military should have noticed but didn't. I think it was an intentional choice to have a lightly armoured recon and transport vehicle and that the soldiers didn't agree with that choice and wanted a heavily armoured vehicle instead.

Sometimes soldiers know what they need better than the upper brass. On the other hand, sometimes the upper brass wants to save money. Sometimes they want a vehicle that's quick and hard to spot, rather than one that's really safe for its occupants.

It's probably a bad sign, especially in an all-volunteer military, when the soldiers refuse to accept the equipment they're given and insist on modifying it because they assume the brass are idiots and gave them something defective.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I think the scrap armor they're talking about adding was to deal with the huge amount of mines they were dealing with in Iraq.

    Speed doesn't save you from an explosion.

    The US went in with a mentality and approach, and the resistance forces found a weak spot and leaned on it.

    Honest appraisal and adaptation is necessary in any competitive activity, not just war.

    I think it's the "honest appraisal" part that the US can't do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I think IEDs were the big issue that was scaring the American soldiers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the US planners were caught off guard. It might just mean that they thought that an occasional light vehicle taken out by an IED was an acceptable loss.

    The number of acceptable losses according to military planners is always going to be much higher than the number of acceptable losses according to the people getting killed. Often the power rests with the planners and the soldiers just have to grumble and accept it. It's interesting that in this case the soldiers were able to make their case so effectively that the military started putting armour on light vehicles, something that's very rarely done.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Lots of people driving "behind the lines" supply routes with vehicles that were never meant to operate under fire or be nimble also got hit.

    The US went in thinking that it would be like the Normandy campaign with overall friendly locals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Nah I remember it pretty well they shipped the soldiers without adequate body armor as well.

    It was less a calculated, strategic move and more of a "dumbass doesn't know how it works" thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •