> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective.

The military objective can be achieved, it would just require the 'No New Wars' party to implode from having 272 seats to having ~150 seats after the midterms.

▲

bulbar 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's ironic that Vance and Co were bragging about "no more stupid rules of engagement" but then they effectively do the very same thing by not allowing boots on the ground for political reason.

▲

vkou 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Since you're kvetching about stupid political reasons I'm assuming you're volunteering to go first as drone cannon fodder?

That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.

	▲	bulbar 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I volunteer to keep voting for parties that do not start a war that effectively can only be won with boots on the grounds, as I have always been, from Europe, as a citizen of a Europe country. > That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes. I totally agree. It's just that they were bragging regarding restrictions for political reasons and that they wouldn't do that, just 'effective' warfare. It somehow seems like there were good reasons that the US never went to war against Iran before. Maybe there were reasons for a lot of other stuff as well that people just not fully understand and the US now voted a man into power that doesn't understand it either. That's also why some people celebrate Trump as a genius. "Finally, a man with the same line of thought as me!" might possibly not be the same as being a genius.