The Guardian reported this headline last night:
US pauses Iran attacks for second night after Trump advised to halt bombing
Top military officials say campaign has reached its limit of effectiveness and warn of dwindling stocks of munitions
The report itself added:
Senior officials in the Trump administration are reported to have told the president about dwindling munitions stockpiles that could hamper a sustained military campaign in the region.
Axios reported on Sunday that Adm Bradley Cooper, the top US military commander in the region, had told Trump the US military campaign had reached the limits of its effectiveness.
There is, of course, more to the halt in combat operations than this, but the fact that this is reported is of interest for three reasons.
First, the weaponry is running out. Modern manufacturing and budgets cannot keep up with the capacity of modern warfare to destroy armaments.
Second, it is reported that the military has also advised that there are few targets left to bomb unless an invasion is being considered, and it clearly is not.
Third, as a result, this war is grinding to a halt again, as is that in Ukraine.
Several thoughts follow.
First, Trump's rhetoric and capacity to act have not, as ever, coincided.
Second, if this ability to deplete munitions well before physical violence delivers what those starting it think to be desired outcomes is real, and it seems to be, what does this say about any state's ability to now wage war?
Third, why in that case have we become so paranoid about increasing defence spending when it is clear that the prospects of war, let alone successful war, are actually quite low unless we assume very high degrees of irrationality on the part of those promoting it?
Fourth, should we not, instead, be learning the lessons from this and be reflecting on how to resolve conflict in very different ways, or even to end the reason for it arising? Do we, and does NATO, or any other alliance of which we are a supposed part, need to rethink the whole concept of security anew in that case when it is apparent that war, as currently technically delivered, can clearly resolve nothing?
Would it not, in other words, be advisable to be more than a little curious about alternative diplomatic, foreign and defence policies at this moment in a world where pathways to peace are essential if we are to resolve the bigger issues that we face, such as climate change, the real threat from which is clearly growing by the day?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
While I agree wholeheartedly, I don’t think Trump thinks there’s any profit in peace.
Thanks, you just put this into my head!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythCSNqa3gA
Very good
Perhaps war (particularly this war, initiated and strategised so incompetently, by such an evil deranged man) is the best illustration of the truth of MMT.
It isn’t money Trump’s government has run out of, but weapons, and material resources.
Correct
“dwindling stocks of munitions”………on the US and Israeli side. Which begs the question, although the USA claims to have “run out of targets” what is the stock of missiles & drones on the Iran side? What might Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (on the front line as it were) be saying to the USA? What has Russia supplied to Iran in terms of fibre-controlled drones? The “big stuff” might be over, but I suspect there is a long tail to this which will play out not just in the Persian Gulf but the Red Sea and Lebanon and Syria (both of which Israel has invaded for “security reasons” – how does invading a neighbour improve your “security” I wonder).
I think you are right
The fat lady is a long way from singing as yet
A most timely and significant post. Thank you. All that you say takes me back to President Eisenhower’s valedictory warning of the danger of the military/industrial complex. We seem to be seeing this played out right now with ridiculous claims that defence spending must increase significantly at the expense of public welfare and public services. In my view, the question that needs to be constantly asked of those promoting these claims is why? What will another military white elephant like aircraft carriers and a replacement for Trident actually achieve in an era of asymmetric war and cheap but effective drones? This then leads on to another related question: who will profit from the increased spending? I am sure we all know only too well. As Private Eye frequently documents, the revolving door between the military (and ex-ministers) and the arms industry reveals just how we, as taxpayers, are being taken for fools. Now, however, as both Trump and Putin have shown, there are clear limits to the efficacy of modern warfare. This obsession with increased defence spending is as pernicious as the household budget falsehood yet we are currently being deafened by the calls from the political class (and mainstream media) for more and more money for “defence”. There is also a deeper set of questions: just what are we defending, why should the pubic accept sacrifices to defend a system that has done so much harm to them and what would happen if the public turned a deaf ear to all those calls (especially those that suggest conscription)?
Much to agree with
“Would it not, in other words, be advisable to be more than a little curious about alternative diplomatic, foreign and defence policies at this moment in a world where pathways to peace are essential”<p>
Very much so Richard – but our politicians are sending out no signals whatsoever that they appreciate diplomatic alternatives to war are essential<p>
The reason is pretty obvious – as in 1984, we always need an ‘enemy’ to keep the population in line – and to continue the flow of money into the military industrial complex
I hate to say it, but uch to agree with
My concern in addition to the comments above is that considering some of the fundamentalist nutters that surround Trump, a limited nuclear option becomes a reality.
From where I’m looking, the POTUS is simply the monkey. There’s a whole psse of organ-grinders, some of whom don’t believe in climate change, others think themselves insulated enough not to care, and all are making tons of money. But the chaos is designed, and not a by-product.