The article is focused on money, equipment, and industrial capacity but misses the bigger picture. Where is the consideration of strategy, terrain, logistics, geopolitics?
The US jumped into this war with the expectation that they could simply buy their way to victory via fancy equipment. Never mind that nobody in the administration thought to define what “victory” would even mean in this case.
Meanwhile, Iran is using the local geography to their advantage. They are using drone weapons that are inexpensive, both in terms of money and the risk to their soldiers. Iran has home field advantage, meaning easier logistics. Iran definitely understands the political and industrial landscape of the Middle East better than the US. They are in a better position overall to succeed in this war, regardless of how many F-35s and Patriot missiles the US may be able to produce.
It might be that the problem is really that the US military is still built around a war that nobody fights any longer. That’s the reason Russia isn’t making progress despite giving its all: it’s fighting like it’s 1950, but it’s 2026. By that I mean the command structure, the expensive weapons, the difficult procurement, the crappy logistics - not the tech, which is apparently not that bad.
We saw the first inklings of this in the Second Iraq War, when the military victory was complete and immediate, and it didn’t matter at all, because the real war happened after Iraq had surrendered.
Trump’s biggest problem is that he’s stuck in old times. He talks about tariffs as if the rest of the world hadn’t realized they don’t work, he talks about battleships as if all navies in the world hadn’t declared them obsolete. He is a product of an ancient time, and it shows with the fights he picks.
This one is particularly dumb, because American presidents have wanted to punish Iran militarily for 40 years, yet they never did anything precisely because it’s not a winnable war. Someone should have told him it wasn’t going to work out. Heck, they probably did, and he decided he was smarter than them all.
Someone should have told him it wasn’t going to work out. Heck, they probably did, and he decided he was smarter than them all.
NYT had an article about the decision to go to war. It’s very “first draft of history” but interesting reading:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html
Basically, he surrounded himself with sycophants, so naturally they all told him that whatever he decided was the right answer and/or they would support him no matter what. Future generations will use this as an example of how NOT to do things.
It’s been known for a long time.
Look at what happened to the us military during and after vietnam. There were a bunch of flaws and old equipment they suffered with. Then after vietnam was over the whole military got overhauled. F4 phantoms became F-14s, 15s and 16s. Tanks and APCs were replaced with Abrams and Bradleys. From the rations to the carrier strike groups the whole force was new, renewed or about to be.
The military force that squared up with Saddam’s in 1991 was incredible and was more refined than anything fielded in history. That was 35 years ago. The military didn’t stop evolving but it’s finding itself in a similar situation post Afghanistan, especially in the conventional forces.
People hate mil spending, but the only thing worse than a lot of money on a military is a military that will be steamrolled when it matters most.
The US military was built to fight the Cold War. The Cold War is long gone, but the B52s are still flying.
Bullshit. This is Custer at The Battle of the Little Bighorn.
Don’t blame the troops or the equipment, blame the leader who chose the battle field and strategy.
If you had actually read the article you would know that they are not, in fact, blaming the troops. They are blaming the leadership and government for poor planning and strategy that has left them unprepared for the wars we now find ourselves in. Wars like in Iran where despite the bombing campaign, Iran is still in control of the Strait of Hormuz and still has drones they are using the kill and threaten US interests and allies.
In addition, the American government appears unwilling and/or unable to change course and prepare for the realities of war in the 21st century. It’s yet another example of our broken system not solving any problems for the country.
I did read the article. I also read the title.
I stand by my comment. They walked in with arrogance and hit a wall. That is not the troops fault or an equipment problem. The equipment works fine for what it was designed to do.
Does the article point out we need cheaper mass produced drones and not new battle ships? Yes. But they hid it behind a title that did not say that.
Also it reads like an ad for massive defense spending while ignoring the fact that we should not have been there to start with. It would have cost us nothing to not participate. But the pro Israel NYT is not going to say that.
Custer should have not tried to bully the Indians. But he fucked around and found out. Now so has trump.
That’s part of what determines military effectiveness.
When Hegseth says this garbage but calls it wokeness you’re able to catch on to the propaganda, but get a turtlenecked halfwit at a paper you also claim to hate to say the same thing and you nod along.
