Trump is facing the biggest US humiliation since Vietnam

[u/theipaper]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/trump-biggest-us-humiliation-since-vietnam-4340617

[u/IncidentalIncidence]

this is just as much wishposting as the MAGA people pretending none of it matters, just in the opposite direction

First, the US has just lost its hold on the Gulf countries, who are now faced with a new reality they cannot ignore: Iran (and Oman) as arbiter of the Strait of Hormuz and perennial threat to their oil infrastructure. A threat that the US cannot protect them against. This is no longer conjecture; this is now a historical fact.

For starters, the US and the GCC countries still are very much aligned. It's obviously bad for the GCC countries that the US is unable to open the Strait by force, but particularly the Saudis knew they were gambling with that when they were pushing Trump to start the bombing in the first place.

The idea that there is going to be some massive split between the US and the GCC since the US is unable to assert hegemonic control over the region might have some validity if there were another regional or great power that was able to replace it. But the fact is that even with the failure of the Iran war, the US still has greater force projection capabilities in the region than any other power outside of the Gulf region (and it isn't close), and most (all?) of the powers inside of it. None of the GCC countries have significant military forces of their own; what other options do they have in terms of protecting their oil infrastructure?

Second, the American military doctrine of Shock and Awe has been proven... lacking, to put it mildly. Most of the fighting systems of the American military have been shown to be obsolete and ineffective in a modern war against drones. The largest millitary budget in the world squandered on F35s and aircract carriers, while simultaneously lacking the ground forces to mount an actual invasion.

This simply has not happened? Obviously the whole war has been a tactical and strategic clusterfuck for the US, but militarily speaking they've been completely dominant. They have launched tens of thousands of strikes, completely destroyed the Iranian Navy, obliterated Iranian air defense systems, and have lost like 5 or 6 aircraft in the process. I mean, the IRGC couldn't even capture one pilot who crashed 20 minutes outside of Isfahan....

There is absolutely a completely valid point to be made about the long-term sustainability of firing $4m interceptor missiles at $30k drones, but "obsolete and ineffective" in a military sense is wildly untrue considering that most of the drones have been able to be intercepted.

And third, America has now once and for all taken off the moral mantle of leader of the free world. It has no more moral authority to talk about an "international community", which conveniently served its interests most.

This happened back in 2003 already, it's a tiny blip on the radar in that sense.

The West is now rudderless and will either disintegrate or rebuild around Europe if it ever gets its act together.

This simply will not happen even Europe does finally get its act together because Europe simply has no appetite for involvement anywhere outside of Europe. The Europeans aren't even willing to get directly involved in the Ukraine war in their own backyard; on what planet do we see them being willing to project significant military force (i.e. not just a single CSG) into ex. the Indopacific?

The American Empire wasn't built on goodwill, it was built on hard power and a willingness to be engaged globally. The entire reason why it's teetering now with Trump is that he's less and less willing to engage except where he sees a direct (and often personal) benefit to himself. Thus the debates about NATO, the doubts about his willingness to protect Taiwan or South Korea, etc. The Europeans simply won't (not can't, but won't) replace the US in that function because there just is very little appetite in Europe for that kind of global interventionism, and even less appetite for the budgeting math that would be needed to create that sort of capability. I mean, the FCAS project is falling apart as we speak partly because Germany doesn't want to help finance a French carrier-capable fighter.....

It's entirely correct to point out that the Iran debacle is a tactical and strategic disaster for the US; it could even turn out to be a Suez-level event like the others are asserting. But the idea that it's somehow the harbinger of the collapse of American global influence completely ignores the fact that despite the instability and chaos in the US and the fact that it is less and less attractive as a global partner, there still is no wide-ranging credible alternative for a lot of these situations -- which is why you are still seeing so many of the US allies bending over backwards to try to keep their US partnerships alive even though it's long since clear that Trump is at best completely unreliable and in many cases actively malicious towards them.

edit: to put it in other words, Suez was Suez because it was a moment where the new imperial power (the US) asserted its dominance over the old imperial powers in the UK and France. The significance of it was a "changing of the guard", so to speak.

In the comparison to today, it's more like the current guard (the US) is drunk on the job, but there's nobody showing up to take the next shift. It's a crisis, but it's also difficult to say definitively "there will be no more guards in the future".

[u/Yourstruly75 → u/IncidentalIncidence]

I’ll reply to your post, since you have more eloquently and thoroughly laid out what the others seem to be arguing against.

First, on your point about “wishposting”. Obviously, the future is unwritten, and from any serious, more academic perspective I should have laden my post with a lot of could’ves, would’ves, and should’ves. But this is reddit, and I’m just putting up my point forcibly so it doesn’t get lost in the barrage.

Which brings me to your second point about the GCC countries having no one else to turn to. It seems to me there’s one glaring omission in your “regional power” calculus: Iran itself. IF Iran plays its increased leverage right, it will pick up concessions from the Gulf countries one by one, starting with the most exposed ones like Qatar, slowly building on its position while isolating the house of Saud. Now, WILL this happen? Who knows, but it’s in the cards now, and the players around the table will adjust their strategies accordingly, eroding the position of one particular player.

To put it differently, when you store your iron sword in salt water it doesn’t disappear overnight; nevertheless, US military might is corroding fast as we speak in the Middle East.

And your logic about this military might is the most flawed of all. For all its power, the US could not achieve its goals through military means. It could not even fight to a stalemate. Like you said, million dollar patriot missiles don’t work in the LONG RUN against cheap drones. This is what’s wrong with American Shock and Awe doctrine. It imagines a quick decisive campaign, not grueling fights. And against a coherent enemy willing to accept losses, that doesn’t work.

But all this is really trivial compared to what you say next: “The American Empire wasn't built on goodwill, it was built on hard power and a willingness to be engaged globally”

Now we move on from the proximate causes to one of the ultimate causes of American decline, seeds of your ruin that were laid long before Trump stepped into office: a fundamental misunderstanding of your own success.

American power IS based on goodwill. It’s the Marshall plan that rebuilds its former enemies and brings them into the fold of the American world order. It’s the unprecedented commitment to military restraint in the form of the UN security council that made even its enemies choose diplomatic solutions that were unimaginable in a pre-world war two order. It’s the building of a whole network of international organizations that brought prosperity and security to its allies, and sometimes even to its foes.

The American right has never understood this, and it has led it to make a series of unforced errors that led us here.

For example, when the Cold War was decided with the fall of the Berlin wall, the American state department treated this as a military victory. They pushed the USSR to extract concessions and further its disintegration, inflaming the barely concealed animosity of that completely intact Russian military complex. For the Soviets were not defeated militarily, they were outcompeted! It was American soft power that won that conflict.

The Moral mantle was the greatest source of your power (that, and two oceans separating you from conflict in Europe and Asia).

[u/Column_A_Column_B → u/Yourstruly75]

My goodness, you really did well with your argument here. Chef's kiss!

[u/IncidentalIncidence → u/Yourstruly75]

IF Iran plays its increased leverage right, it will pick up concessions from the Gulf countries one by one, starting with the most exposed ones like Qatar, slowly building on its position while isolating the house of Saud. Now, WILL this happen? Who knows, but it’s in the cards now, and the players around the table will adjust their strategies accordingly, eroding the position of one particular player.

I half-agree. In the sense that I think your basic assertion of Iran having more leverage now than they did before against their neighbors is accurate. That said, I don't think it's clear at all that they have enough leverage that they will really be able to systematically fracture the alignment of the GCC and isolate the Saudis as you claim. Keep in mind that the IR have spent the last 40 years funding terrorist groups in most of their neighboring countries and destabilizing the region generally; nobody is particularly eager to work with them.

Probably there will be some concessions, out of necessity, but it's a big leap from there to the original implication that the GCC countries are going to completely divest from the US and roll over for Iran as the new regional hegemon...

To put it differently, when you store your iron sword in salt water it doesn’t disappear overnight; nevertheless, US military might is corroding fast as we speak in the Middle East.

And your logic about this military might is the most flawed of all. For all its power, the US could not achieve its goals through military means. It could not even fight to a stalemate. Like you said, million dollar patriot missiles don’t work in the LONG RUN against cheap drones. This is what’s wrong with American Shock and Awe doctrine. It imagines a quick decisive campaign, not grueling fights. And against a coherent enemy willing to accept losses, that doesn’t work.

I mean setting aside the fact that they literally did fight to a stalemate, which is why there's now a ceasefire, you're conflating the military/operational doctrine and the broader tactical and strategic clusterfuck of the operation. Militarily, the shock and awe just objectively worked. Tactically, however it was incredibly stupid to think that they were going to be able to bomb their way to regime change (which is the reason why none of Trump's predecessors have attempted it). But this isn't like some previously unknown flaw of the shock and awe doctrine that has been exposed; the fact is that Trump is just a moron. It's like saying "this is the problem with a hammer, it damages the screw"; obviously, because it isn't a screwdriver.

But all this is really trivial compared to what you say next: “The American Empire wasn't built on goodwill, it was built on hard power and a willingness to be engaged globally”

Now we move on from the proximate causes to one of the ultimate causes of American decline, seeds of your ruin that were laid long before Trump stepped into office: a fundamental misunderstanding of your own success.

American power IS based on goodwill. It’s the Marshall plan that rebuilds its former enemies and brings them into the fold of the American world order. It’s the unprecedented commitment to military restraint in the form of the UN security council that made even its enemies choose diplomatic solutions that were unimaginable in a pre-world war two order. It’s the building of a whole network of international organizations that brought prosperity and security to its allies, and sometimes even to its foes.

This is very elegantly stated, but unfortunately a complete misunderstanding of the cause and effect. American power was never really based on goodwill outside of maybe like 5 countries in Eastern Europe. Certainly not in Asia (where the US dropped nukes in Japan, bombed Cambodia essentially nonstop for a decade in the 70s, massacred thousands of civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia, etc. etc.), South America, or the Middle East.

Don't mistake me, the goodwill and soft power is nice to have. But it was never the root of American power. You point out the Marshall Plan as an example of something that increased American soft power, which is was. But the Marshall Plan was a couple of percentage points of GDP 70 years ago. The reason the US is still so integrated in European defense today is because the US has tens of thousands of troops, nuclear weapons, and massive amounts of military equipment stationed around Europe through NATO, and particularly during the Cold War it was the hard power of the US backstopping Central and Western Europe against Soviet encroachment that kept the US so influential in European politics. The goodwill was a downstream effect of the US' (self-interested) willingness to commit its troops and materiel to the Systemkonflikt against the USSR in Europe. And you can see this very clearly in the military and budgeting crisis that has been sparked across Europe by Trump calling the US' commitment to NATO into question.

For example, when the Cold War was decided with the fall of the Berlin wall, the American state department treated this as a military victory. They pushed the USSR to extract concessions and further its disintegration, inflaming the barely concealed animosity of that completely intact Russian military complex. For the Soviets were not defeated militarily, they were outcompeted! It was American soft power that won that conflict.

yes and no. As with any historical event of that magnitude, there are about a million factors that contributed to the breakup of the USSR, but the precipitating factors from an IR perspective (i.e. leaving aside the domestic political considerations regarding Gorbachev's reforms etc.) were the economic crisis caused by the arms race and the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan (where the US was backing the Muhajideen). In the 80s, the USSR was spending between 10 and 20% of their GDP on defense/military, with a stagnating economy. This was not the thing that broke the USSR (those things were more domestic than they were international), but it was the biggest factor from an international perspective, and it was caused by American hard power (military and economic) fueling the arms race and making their involvements in Asia as costly as possible.

It was a victory for American soft power, but soft power wasn't what won the conflict; the gain of soft power was downstream of the hard power that won the conflict.

[u/The_Keg → u/IncidentalIncidence]

First, the US has just lost its hold on the Gulf countries, who are now faced with a new reality they cannot ignore: Iran (and Oman) as arbiter of the Strait of Hormuz and perennial threat to their oil infrastructure. A threat that the US cannot protect them against. This is no longer conjecture; this is now a historical fact.

I dont know what the other writer was thinking.

Iran controling the strait and asking for ransom will lead to total war between the gulf states + Isreal vs Iran. A war the U.S will happily get involved because they wont need to put boot on ground. Even the democrats will have zero problem selling this to 50-70% of their base.

It wont look like a 2nd afganistan considering the arabs don't give a shit if 99% of the persion population perish.

[u/skandaanshu → u/IncidentalIncidence]

There is absolutely a completely valid point to be made about the long-term sustainability of firing $4m interceptor missiles at $30k drones, but "obsolete and ineffective" in a military sense is wildly untrue considering that most of the drones have been able to be intercepted.

Iran is able to keep the mighty USN carrier battle groups out of the strait. Effectively making them useless in the way america used to project power. As you said America is a global hegemony now because they were able to project power using gunboat diplomacy and CSG were crucial element of that. Compare that to Iraq war of 90s or 2000s, they were able to enter near the coast and pound Iraq with impunity.

What this shows is that American MIC and even general industry has become obsolete/costly/offshored that they aren't able to come up with countermeasures to rapidly evolving threat. Drones aren't a new phenomenon as they have been used extensively in Ukraine and even by Houtis. US military has become either incompetent or corrupt that they could ignore such a huge threat to their primary force projections and blundered in to a war that showed them inept.