3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Pentagon - “Aircraft was damaged.”

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Edited yesterday at 05:45 AM1 day by No One

10 hours ago, frog said:

What is the desired end state? No one seems to be able to explain it. If no one knows what the desired end state is, how can the American people define the cost they are willing to pay?

Take away (or at least reduce to max extent feasible) Iran’s ability to project any kind of influence, power, and/or destruction outside of their own borders.

4 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Incorrect - Air Force to Buy Developmental E-7s With $2.4B Contract Modifications

Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!

@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.

10 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

I can promise you one KC-135 is not $240M.

36 minutes ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Great. With Boeing’s track record for on-time success, they’ll be here any day now!

@No One , you could probably add between 1-3 destroyed KC-135s to that list, same attack as that E-3 that suffered a mere flesh wound.

-46 was damaged as well

12 hours ago, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

Now do Iran...

23 hours ago, brabus said:

Bottom line: it’s a lot better than the MSM and you would like it to be. The red line for me would be mass ground invasion for longterm “nation building” (aka the last 25 years). I don’t support that one bit, and would view it as a leadership failure.

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Now do Iran...

59 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

Aside from the college-essay-esqe nature of your question and the interesting philosophical debate it could engender: why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer? I mean I get the rules of war and not violating clearly illegal bounds ala My Lai massacre, but in sooooooo, soo many cases in the modern era, this is how "war" is fought. WTF is "congressional approval" for anyway? Funding, right? Congress gets to declare war - which they don't do - so you and I know that in the real, modern world, the President has full and complete executive authority to launch whatever type of operation he deems serves our national security, Congress be damned. That's it. ROE is determined by government / military lawyers - not Congress. So, why do you think you have any legitimate basis upon which to question this operation vs any of the others you've been fine carrying out?

Congress doesn't get any say whatsoever in what the scope of an operation is, whatever the label is you want to apply to it, be it 'limited,' 'temporary,' no 'boots on ground,' etc. So your question is inherently a red-herring. If you have (or had) a serious personal issue with how military operations have been conducted since WWII and Congress' (lack of) authorization, then you should have resigned your commission and stopped collecting retirement pay a long time ago.

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

why do you feel you have any legitimacy in questioning the legality of this conflict as an officer?

Because as an officer, it is quite literally his job to understand the legality of orders before carrying them out. One of the unique and saving graces of the US military: The officers swear no allegiance to the president, but rather to the constitution, and specifically in the oath, are required to follow lawful orders.

3 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

I don't think there's a simple objective answer to your question. The framers clearly understood that Congress could not be relied upon to act swiftly in times of military necessity. Thus the commander-in-chief.

And more recently, the last few decades, Congress has happily offloaded unbelievable amounts of their authority to the executive. That includes many of the powers to wage war, despite retaining the now largely ceremonial function of declaring it.

So I think the real answer in light of that, is that the president has the authority wage war until a veto-proof majority of Congress decides to take it away. The president is, after all, a direct representative of the people, and the only true representative of all Americans.

The alternative to this construct is incredibly dangerous. Not to say that the current construct is danger-free, but I would rather we over-war, than under-war, if that makes sense. The former can be fixed with the existing structures of our government. The latter is existential.

And my suspicion is that if we end up nation building, which I absolutely don't think is happening, you'll have more than enough Republicans vote against him to break a veto.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by Lord Ratner

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't think there's a simple objective answer to your question. The framers clearly understood that Congress could not be relied upon to act swiftly in times of military necessity. Thus the commander-in-chief.

And more recently, the last few decades, Congress has happily offloaded unbelievable amounts of their authority to the executive. That includes many of the powers to wage war, despite retaining the now largely ceremonial function of declaring it.

Agreed. The phrasing of the War Powers Act is pretty vague and I think that was intentional. While obviously not the same thing, when a contract is written vaguely, the wiggle room is generally interpreted more liberally towards the party that did not write the contract, or so my lawyer told me. Since Congress wrote the War Powers Act and did so in vague language, it seems reasonable for the Executive to be able to use all the wiggle room Congress seems to have intentionally given.

As far as Constitutional questions, the modern Federal government has gone so far beyond the Constitution that it can't even be seen in the rear view mirror. It would be comical to suddenly draw a WAY more restrictive line when it comes to the Commander-in-Chief employing the military.

Individual officers must be able to recognize and not obey illegal orders. Extending that same responsibility to the entire war seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. If the President ordered the invasion of Bermuda because he said he wants a better vacation home, that would be different, but this is a war on a country that has directly caused American deaths. An officer saying that's illegal because it's been XX days and therefore in his mind should have Congressional approval seems absurd.

What’s important to remember about executive branch scope creep and abuse of power is that its only bad when the other side does it. When your own side does it, it’s just an unfortunate reality/status quo of the times we live in.

8 hours ago, FourFans said:

Because as an officer, it is quite literally his job to understand the legality of orders before carrying them out. One of the unique and saving graces of the US military: The officers swear no allegiance to the president, but rather to the constitution, and specifically in the oath, are required to follow lawful orders.

Yeah @FourFans , no one is saying follow illegal orders, but thanks for the re-iteration of the oath. @17D_guy specifically cast this in light of this war being illegal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In other words, he has implied that the operation is de facto illegal since Congress hasn't, what, voted on it? That's what I'm dismissing out of hand.

And in any case, if that's the approach he's going to take to this conflict, then my logical follow-up question for him is why didn't he resign at any other point in the last 20 years of wars this country has been fighting which congress didn't authorize? We've all had plenty of time to adjust to the new modern way of war, and if we didn't like it, we could have put our money where our mouth was and quit. Only now we're getting the constitutional scaries???

Put differently, it's the furthest thing from officership I can think of. He stated clearly that he doesn't think this is legal because Congress hasn't authorized it. In no way shape or form does Congress have to authorize military action. That is fully in the President's lane.

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Yeah @FourFans , no one is saying follow illegal orders, but thanks for the re-iteration of the oath. @17D_guy specifically cast this in light of this war being illegal because Congress hasn't authorized it.

Your logic isn’t logicing.

You literally were saying “who are you to question the legality of orders.”

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And my suspicion is that if we end up nation building, which I absolutely don't think is happening, you'll have more than enough Republicans vote against him to break a veto.

My suspicion Is that the keyboard warriors here - many of them civilians such as @Lord Ratner - are going to continue to change their minds to fall in line, demonstrating they never really had any principles to start with. Let’s see if that money gets put where the mouths are.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Negat0ry

On 3/29/2026 at 3:47 AM, brabus said:

Take away (or at least reduce to max extent feasible) Iran’s ability to project any kind of influence, power, and/or destruction outside of their own borders.

You’re just reiterating talking points that mean nothing. Literally the biggest nothing statement you can make.

How do you do that in an asymmetric situation where the threat of drones and mines alone - literally the threat - makes insurance rates so high that ships cannot go through the strait?

Do you have to set up a DMZ 30 miles from the border?

Do you have to entirely destroy their whole ballistic missile force?

Destroy the ability to launch Shaheds? Good luck.

Do you have to kill all Iranian military? The men?

How do you stop them from coming back in 2 years pissed off you killed a bunch of their civilians? War and the ability to disrupt is accessible by the Houthis lol.

What’s your plan here Stan?

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Negat0ry

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

In no way shape or form does Congress have to authorize military action.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution disagrees with you. If you're an officer who swore to defend the document, maybe read it.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-1-1/ALDE_00013587/

More concerning is your logic of "we've been doing it this way before so we should keep doing it". That's dangerously parallel to telling your girlfriend "you said yes last night, so your 'no' means nothing tonight."

Officers can and should question orders. Just because they had to comply last time just to keep their jobs doesn't mean they have to do it again. Besides, he's offering an opinion, not declaring something illegal. Opinionated officers, especially those who disagree with the yes-man mentality you are espousing, are critically important to the effectiveness of the US military. Without them we become the Empire from Star Wars.

Perhaps you should "put your money where your mouth is" and resign in protest if you don't like a military populated by critical thinking that questions the validity of orders, regardless of what we did last time. Pretty easy to throw principled talk around until it's the livelihood of your own family that's at stake. Maybe slowdown on that front.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by FourFans

2 hours ago, Negat0ry said:

Your logic isn’t logicing.

You literally were saying “who are you to question the legality of orders.”

My suspicion Is that the keyboard warriors here - many of them civilians such as @Lord Ratner - are going to continue to change their minds to fall in line, demonstrating they never really had any principles to start with. Let’s see if that money gets put where the mouths are.

For a guy who has a track record of being wrong and having to walk back comments here, you sure are confident in everybody else being wrong.

I also explicitly said that we should take Kharg Island. Try not to get an erection while you struggle with ways to make those two statements mutually exclusive.

17 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Appreciate this input. Legit question for all following:

This has been framed as a limited engagement, therefore not requiring Congressional approval. Trump's made some comments on why that phrasing has been used, but I do wonder from the members of this board:

When, in your opinion, does the timing under "limited operation" exceed executive authority and need to require Congressional approval? Would it be a time period (ex. >2 months), funding amount, assets utilized (ex. # of troops, or x number of MEFs/squadrons/carrier groups)?

And/or is there a operation type (ground invasion, targeting power generation, etc.) which also leads this to requiring Congressional approval? Would a Kharg island invasion be a crossed line?

For my part, this already exceeds a limited operation (I would consider Venezuela that), funding is well beyond what I consider within the bounds of law (not a lawyer). I could see a week as a limited operation as well, but would want more Congressional involvement even at that level.

Back to the question asked:

I think any employment of conventional ground forces beyond a Venezuela type raid without congressional approval is going too far. To me, that means the 82nd Airborne dropping on any Iranian soil whatsoever. We've gone too long employing military power without the overt approval of Congress, who are supposed to speak on behalf of the people. The will of the American people needs to be behind any grab-and-hold operation (aka invasion). Without congressional approval, the military becomes the President's personal shotgun to wield as he sees fit, which is NOT how it was intended. The CinC determines HOW the military is employed once America has decided it's going to war. The President does not decide the will of the people.

47 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Back to the question asked:

I think any employment of conventional ground forces beyond a Venezuela type raid without congressional approval is going too far. To me, that means the 82nd Airborne dropping on any Iranian soil whatsoever. We've gone too long employing military power without the overt approval of Congress, who are supposed to speak on behalf of the people. The will of the American people needs to be behind any grab-and-hold operation (aka invasion). Without congressional approval, the military becomes the President's personal shotgun to wield as he sees fit, which is NOT how it was intended. The CinC determines HOW the military is employed once America has decided it's going to war. The President does not decide the will of the people.

While I do agree with you, in theory, here are some argumentative points.

1. If the Framers’ intent to limit the authority to exercise the military by the president/CinC, then they would’ve written the Constitution to do so. The main reason for Congress to declare war is due to the “power of the purse.”

2. It took Congress until 1973 to create the War Powers Resolution, which one could argue is still vague outside of the president briefing Congress before troop deployment and submitting a report within 48 hours of a deployment.

3. Congress does decide the will of the people, which one could argue since they haven’t done anything to amend the War Powers Resolution since it was signed into law or impeached and removed a president since the resolution was created, then the current construct seems to be supported by the majority of the people.

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

For a guy who has a track record of being wrong and having to walk back comments here, you sure are confident in everybody else being wrong.

I also explicitly said that we should take Kharg Island. Try not to get an erection while you struggle with ways to make those two statements mutually exclusive.

How does the US take Kharg Island, or really any ground objective of Iran, without sending in ground troops?

3 minutes ago, FourFans said:

Pretty easy to throw principled talk around until it's the livelihood of your own family that's at stake. Maybe slowdown on that front.

I committed war crimes or followed orders I know to be unlawful because my family could only be supported by a military salary.

That's a hot take.

To your broader point, I agree with officers being generally critical of the nature of their service, but it only takes a quick AI prompt to articulate the inherent conflicts between section 8 of article 1 of the Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, and the Chadha ruling. We've been struggling with it since Jefferson went after the Barbary Pirates. The Congress still had afterbirth on it and already it was coming up with ways to avoid its war-declaring responsibilities, inventing the AUMF.

The most consistent interpretation of current law, which I think applies here, is that the president has 90 days to either get congressional approval to keep attacking Iran, or wrap it up. Past that, I personally would believe the operation is exceeding statutory authorization. However I don't think any officer below the rank of general has any moral or legal authority whatsoever to concern themselves with that.

An unlawful order is not the same thing as an unlawful campaign. And an order given during an unlawful campaign is not an unlawful order.

28 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

How does the US take Kharg Island, or really any ground objective of Iran, without sending in ground troops?

They would. I would consider it materially the same as parking a bunch of warships around Iran. At a certain point you have to accept the semantic limitations, and get to the point. And for me, the point is we should not take over Iran and attempt to transform it in the way we did Afghanistan or Iraq. Taking Kharg Island is about taking resources with strategic geopolitical consequences and applying pressure. Kind of like taking Maduro. Outside of starving the regime of money, it does nothing to give the Iranian people a better future, something that I consider their obligation, not ours.

On 3/29/2026 at 12:23 AM, No One said:

Don't worry we've got the replacement coming off the line any day now! Oh wait I forgot we decided we didn't want or need the E-7.

Total USAF airframe losses or significantly damaged as a result of Iran as of 3/28/26:

*{3) F-15E fighters - $300M

* (11) MQ-9 Reapers - $330M

* (1) KC-135 crashed, 6 crew killed - $240M, priceless

*(6) KC-135 damaged - $1.44B

*(1) F-35 damaged - $135M

* (1) E-3 AWACS - $700M

Cost to replace: $3.145B

All good now>