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.
How close does the base have to be? The USN has resupply ships, allowing the fleets to stay somewhere and never go back to the port. For anything other than resupply, the base could really be anywhere in the world.
The USN is functioning in the way it is expected to. In a “real” war, you would expect there to be losses, including bases near the front line. In a real war it wouldn’t be unusual for sailors to have to skip leave. The thing is, the US hasn’t fought a “real” war in a very long time – the kind of war that puts hardship on sailors. So, even though the US is sorta-kinda at war, it’s not the kind of war where sailors feel like they have to make sacrifices. So, they’re complaining a lot about having to stay out at sea for a long time.
Combine that with the military leadership being too proud to admit to making mistakes, the president being unwilling to ever back down, and nobody being willing to say that Iran managed to land a few blows, and you get sailors who don’t believe they’re in a real war, so they’re pissed off about not getting shore leave. You also get a Navy that isn’t willing to move other carrier strike groups into the region so that the sailors currently there can get cycled out for a break.
But, this is hardly devastating to the military. Morale on that carrier isn’t great, but it’s not like anybody’s injured or dying. They’re still getting regular supplies.
There’s nothing about what’s happening that’s unthinkable. In a real war you’d expect things to be much worse.
The bases in the Gulf states weren’t just sitting there for command. They were supposed to provide near-real-time intelligence and rapid response, in particular for the countries where those bases were stationed but also in general for the area. The bases synergized to protect each other, and in particular to protect Israel.
The point of that was to assert US control of the Persian Gulf and keep the Gulf states compliant. The importance of that can’t be understated for the US’s economy. These bases weren’t built as a joke.
The US believed that Iran’s government would fall and that Iran’s military would be unable to mount a resistance. That’s why the bases weren’t evacuated before the war.
So losing them is a huge deal. It’s at least 10 radar systems targeted, including the likely loss of 4 AN/TPY-2 radars for THAAD, of which only 14 has ever been produced. This means that the US is now in a much worse position to project power in the Persian Gulf.
The US will also never enter the Persian Gulf by sea again. I don’t think these losses can be beushed off as inconsequential. These assets can not be replaced or made up for with bases elsewhere. And when the US military presence is removed from the Gulf States, it is reasonable to assume that the petrodollar will be significantly weakened.
Its not resupplying ships, this is not in debate. This “not war” has shown the usn is not functioning in the way their nation was expecting. They have a lack of ships (escort and supply) and this is showing.
It’s not getting as frequent supplies as would be nice… but the US is at war, and that ship is on the frontlines of the war. That’s perfectly normal in a war.
Yes it is, and the term for that is “losing”