Jolyon@jolyon

Takip et

Matt Bracken on Iran Yemen and US military logistics

The question Matt Bracken puts at the center of any next phase with Iran isn't which target gets picked. It's whether the country can still go to war in the manner it always has. Nothing about a large air campaign is simple: planes have to move from one base to another, tankers have to be positioned for refueling, and carriers have to get near enough to be useful. Bracken's case is that pulling off that kind of choreography without anyone noticing has basically stopped being possible. Surveillance from orbit and from the phones in everyone's pockets can give away the buildup well before the first aircraft shows up, and ballistic missiles close the gap to regional U.S. bases in less time than American jets need to reach what they were sent for. So he doesn't buy the idea that a big strike on Iran is the move most likely to happen. If the goal is something Washington can actually pull off, he points at Yemen: use Djibouti as the launch point and try to sever Houthi forces that keep stretching themselves along the Red Sea. That option carries its own cost, though. Djibouti would end up on the receiving end of missiles. The pattern that held for decades was straightforward: stand up a forward base, bring in C-130s and C-17s, accumulate aircraft and troops, and trust that the enemy couldn't do much to the logistical hub propping up the whole thing. Bracken's verdict is that this trust is gone. "Nobody's challenging us. That day is over." The argument reaches past Yemen. American military strength is still enormous. What has shifted is the infrastructure that has to be brought together before that strength means anything. It is more exposed, more hittable, and harder to shield. The old playbook counted on building the hammer safely before swinging it. The hand holding it is now in range.

3h

Jolyon@jolyon

Takip et

Matt Bracken on Iran Yemen and US military logistics

The question Matt Bracken puts at the center of any next phase with Iran isn't which target gets picked. It's whether the country can still go to war in the manner it always has. Nothing about a large air campaign is simple: planes have to move from one base to another, tankers have to be positioned for refueling, and carriers have to get near enough to be useful. Bracken's case is that pulling off that kind of choreography without anyone noticing has basically stopped being possible. Surveillance from orbit and from the phones in everyone's pockets can give away the buildup well before the first aircraft shows up, and ballistic missiles close the gap to regional U.S. bases in less time than American jets need to reach what they were sent for. So he doesn't buy the idea that a big strike on Iran is the move most likely to happen. If the goal is something Washington can actually pull off, he points at Yemen: use Djibouti as the launch point and try to sever Houthi forces that keep stretching themselves along the Red Sea. That option carries its own cost, though. Djibouti would end up on the receiving end of missiles. The pattern that held for decades was straightforward: stand up a forward base, bring in C-130s and C-17s, accumulate aircraft and troops, and trust that the enemy couldn't do much to the logistical hub propping up the whole thing. Bracken's verdict is that this trust is gone. "Nobody's challenging us. That day is over." The argument reaches past Yemen. American military strength is still enormous. What has shifted is the infrastructure that has to be brought together before that strength means anything. It is more exposed, more hittable, and harder to shield. The old playbook counted on building the hammer safely before swinging it. The hand holding it is now in range.

3h