At some point, there's going to be a dumbenough general to try to paratrooper their way in. They've spent the past year trying to cull "dysloyal" troops, so at some point, the delusion will surface is an absurdly dumb attempt.

Hard to see it any other way.

▲

bluegatty 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

US forces are not partisan and not culled, they're mostly the same entity they were last year, but with a few Generals asked to retire.

(Edit: highly professional I might add. There are quirks, and obvious hints of 'nationalist bias' - but that's to be expected. They are not the 'cultural problem' we see on the news - at least not for now. They lean 'normal')

The current Joint Chiefs is a bit obsequious but he's not crazy.

These are very sane people, for the most part.

They may be pressed to do something risky, like land troops at Kharg island, but not completely suicidal.

That 'risk' may entail getting a number of soldiers captured, but that's not on the extreme side of military failure, it's mostly geopolitical failure. It would certainly end DJT as a popular movement.

Having a ship hit, or a few soldiers captured - and this sounds morose - is normal. That's why they exist. It's the political fallout that's deadly.

They won't do anything to crazy. The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that. It's very unpopular and DJT has populist instinct as well - he's trying to 'find a way out'.

▲

pjc50 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They won't do anything to crazy.

I don't know, they've been talking up a lot of crazy stuff, like strikes on desalination facilities and the power grid.

> The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that.

Genuninely unclear to me whether Congress has control here; don't they currently have a Republican majority who will agree to anything anyway?

	▲	bluegatty 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		- So I meant militarily. Yes - you're right, they could totally do something as stupid as attack civilian infrastructure. I totally buy that. - Congress is in charge. First - they need budget, and the GOP majority has zero appetiate for approving this. Remember that most of the GOP dislike Trump, and they also don't like this war, it's risky to the US - and - their own jobs. So the GOP finds ways to 'resit' Trump without sticking their neck out. They do this collectively by grumbling and not passing legislation. The majority leaders tell Trump 'We just don't have the votes for it!' thereby not taking a position against Trump, more or less 'blaming the ghosts in the party' kind of thing. That's very different than passing legislation that reels Trump in, that's 'active defiance'. So by 'passive defiance' and not approving $, the majority holds the Admin back. Remember that nobody wants this, not the VP, not Rubio. Hegseth is a 'TV Entertainer'. The Defence Establishment and Intelligence Establishment knows this is stupid. 80% of Congress wants it over now. If DJT has 65% poularity and 75% for the war, the equation would tilt, but as it stands, there is not enough political momentum. But anything could happen ... The death or capture of US soldiers could strongly evoke people to move one way or the other.

▲

cyanydeez 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Theyre culling all branches for loyalty. You arnt paying attention or you thinl those who arnt being promoted are more DEI.

THE rest of your screed follows from inattentive disorder.

	▲	bluegatty 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm a former service member (of another country) and I have family members in the US forces. I'm paying relatively close attention. Just FYI, US forces are enormous, and with a very long and institutionalized history, and it would take at least decade to tilt them in such a manner, moreover, it's not even happening in the way you're insinuating. Removing certain DEI polices will have a very marginal affect on anything but senior officer promotions, as US forces are very meritocratic in most ways already. Removing transgender personnel etc. is arguably unfair in many ways - but will have absolutely zero effect on those institutions overall. None. Nobody is getting 'retired' for not being sufficiently MAGA, other than a few select positions in Washington. Your comment is uninformed and unwelcome; you'll have to do a bit better than consume Reddit in order to gain actual knowledge and perspective, and save yourself the embarrassment.

▲

Caius-Cosades 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Military does as the Civilian leadership orders them to, there is no other way in the west, and if the civilian leadership demands that they want an ground invasion, then they'll get one, even if it's the most moronic waste of human life in the world.

	▲	bluegatty 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's true that 'civilians are in charge' but it would be an oversimplification to suggest that the military will just 'do what they are asked'. Civilian leadership takes a few forms, there is a division between the powers of Executive and Congress. The military won't pursue anything long term without the backing of both. There are a lot of legal thresholds, Congressional approval being just one of them. There is institutional incumbency, and the military will push back extremely hard on things that it deems impossible, or excessively risky. Populism etc. etc.. There are so many factors. If they want to mount a risky 500 000 person invasion of Iran, they'll have to do a lot of 'convincing' and get a lot of buy in from stake holders. There is no chance that the Executive count mount that kind of operation without a lot of institutional buy in.