tac airlifter

FYI: in my professional experience 90% of cases are false accusations.

Agree, and a great reason why we shouldn't lower the voting age to 16.... as one of the parties is trying to do

I'm surprised we're exposing POTUS to this level of danger by sending him into theater. I understand the value of optics, but a trip right now doesn't seem prudent.

Same reason we must defend democracy in Ukraine but not Israel.

Great post. Top line quoted for truth; I too, have said "kill them all" but assume mature people know that statement applies to combatants not civilians. But it's worth mentioning, as it is a key distinction between our side and theirs. Radical jihadists mean "kill them all" in the genocidal sense. That said, the definition of 'combatant' must be revised for wars against unconventional forces hiding behind civilians and collateral damage is inevitable.... the blame lies on Hamas for that result. I have no idea where an average Gaza resident is supposed to go. Not to be harsh, but don't elect Hamas if you don't want to be in this position. I realize their choice at the ballot box was an illusion as Hamas had the guns and wouldn't allow true opposition. Unfortunate situation with no easy answer. Hamas is willing to let every Palestinian child die... I hope it doesn't come to that but how do you fight an adversary bent on genocide without eradicating them? As for Iran, a few days ago I was incorrectly hung up on the Sunni/shia divide and didn't realize how close the collaboration already was. Hamas is proud of the Iranian support; wow. I'm out of my depth, but I do think for the US part we won't do anything. Could be wrong, but I'd guess we lack the appetite to hold Iran directly accountable for US deaths.

Reports ranging from 700-1100 Israeli civilians KIA yesterday. The videos are outrageous, terrorists driving around cities firing indiscriminately. I thought Israeli civilians were all armed, but just learned that is no longer the case and the population has been disarmed over the past decade. WSJ reporting that Iran was involved in tactical planning and formally approved the Hamas operation. Edited to add: US DoS continues looking like idiots by saying they’ve seen no Iranian link….

Appreciate the analysis in this thread so far. A lot of news is hyper partisan and has already censored videos I saw yesterday of atrocities against civilians. The scale of this attack is impressive. That it could be developed while intel agencies were unaware is mind boggling. I understood 9/11 escaping notice of CIA; a small savvy force of disciplined folks is hard to track/assess. In this case they missed an entire army assembling! Holy shit. And the Iran financial connection is out in the open, as is weapons from the AFG withdrawal. Hamas is proud of it. Not sure KJP can spin her way out of our bad decisions directly enabling these actors.

What does "join the invasion" mean? I thought Hezbollah was more West Bank and wasn't even in the Gaza Strip. But as I said, I'm certainly not an expert in the region.

I sort of agree, but would add couple things. First the phrase "wag the dog" implies the incident being responded to is false. Great movie by the way. In this case the incident is obviously true and Israel is surrounded on all sides by fanatics who want them dead. And I'm not a fan of what Netanyahu is doing regarding internal politics; but we are hardly in a position to judge after own politics jumped the shark these past few years. The Israel/Palestine conflict has always been messy with dirty hands on both sides. But supporting Israel is the only ethical option. interesting that this is a Hamas action not Hezbollah; I'm curious what kind of cross-pollination might exists between those two since I'd guess Iran pushing this more than Arab states. Anyone know if Hamas has previously aligned with Shia Iran for anti-Israel actions? Seems strange, but I am not a regional expert.

That’s actually genius bro. Interesting story relayed to me by NWC Dean: when the USSR fell a brief period of candor existed between our militaries and we sent various folks to Moscow who, among other things, got to read Soviet war plans. Anyway, they assessed certain NATO (non-US) fighter units as particularly troublesome in the event of a Fulda Gap scenario so the Soviets developed an unconventional solution: send Spetsnaz pre-invasion to murder them. Small commando teams burning down apartment buildings full of SQ pilots and families would neuter their combat effectiveness without jeopardizing the lesser skilled Soviet Air Forces. so yea, for OPSEC you should stay in a random AirBnB on every TDY. It’s worth a shot 🇺🇸

CH is 100% correct here. If the idea of religious right supporting Trump doesn’t make sense to you, you don’t understand their beliefs or the depth of betrayal they feel by decades of Republicans who have moved none of their issues forward once in office. He doesn’t pretend to be one of them, he clearly does not share all of their moral values. That’s OK for them. Like Trump or not, he delivered on core promises to his constituencies. That’s why he is so popular while Kevin McCarthy (who made promises he failed to honor) is out on his ass. I’m not arguing merits here, but it’s important to understand why people think the way they do if you’re interacting with them.

“Impactful on partner nation real world operations” is a great way to answer my question. Well stated. Your next sentence is equally as true. You’re right they employed like an ODA. Except Army ODAs were doing the Lords work in AFG and accepting huge risk to help ANASOC commandos increase lethality. If the CAAs had been helping the US Military do things we needed and asked them to do, they’d still exist today. Instead they did one off GCC requests and DOS partnerships. Ok, that’s not nothing, but in the world of finite resources they lacked a convincing articulation of benefits provided to those paying the bill. Combine that with some odd cultural idiosyncrasies and their fate was unsurprising.

Define "meaningful work."

I agree with you 99%, my only input is I wonder if the combatant commander model (with its boundaries) should be revisited as our adversaries cross those boundaries without our level of bureaucratic thrash. Regardless, 100% CJCS should not be involved tactically... which Milley was. He was deeply involved with O6 level decisions in the AFG withdrawal. The full depth of his personal touch on that disaster is not widely known.

He is a dishonorable man and disgrace to the uniform. The worst CJCS perhaps ever. I’m hopeful I can eventually say it to his fat face.

This is exactly how an F35 sounds.

Anyone know what he’s referring to here?

Wrong again, lol.

Quite a bit if the alternative was my family dying, and I would deeply resent a foreign power meddling in my business. I’d bide my time and wage an insurgency when I felt I had the upper hand. But I wouldn’t bleed my neighbors against an adversary so much larger than me, I’d play it smart like the Taliban and eventually gain my land back. What were witnessing is just bad tactics. It is astounding to me how the warmonger crowd acknowledges they are sending kids into the meat grinder with no hope of victory yet they claim moral superiority for their stance. All the while advocating for somebody else’s family die with the guns we give them. I do enjoy war and I don’t mind killing Russians, but what is happening right now is just foolish. Brought to you by the same people who lost Afghanistan and gave Iraq to the Iranians, lol.

Boots on the ground = not required to start WW3. also, I'm a pilot and therefore unfamiliar with your odd numbers and symbols above.

Great question. No, but let me explain: the current level of support is escalating not remaining static. From types of weapons (cluster bombs, F-16s) to amount of funding to real-time tactical intelligence used for lethal targeting, it’s continued up up up with no end in sight or coherent vision of an upper limit. I would answer yes if anyone had a cogent articulated strategy with self-imposed limitations (example: containment, MAD, etc.), but we don’t. I’ve had GOs summarize our strategy as “continuing to dial it up as the Ukrainians need, to bleed Russia dry.” This seems open-ended and risky, but my question is how much say should the electorate have in the risk our leadership accepts on our behalf?