Published On: Tue, May 21st, 2019

The American military’s “readiness crisis”: why war won’t be waged on Iran

Share This
Tags

How serendipitous it is that, at this time when a lot of angst about a looming US attack on Iran (and the impending World War which is the usual imagined inevitable development from such a thing), a leaked Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) document appears to put the fact of a false flag at Douma in 2018 beyond doubt. That incident, of course, produced much fear and hysteria in the alternative media. A retaliatory “love bomb” attack by the USA on Syria, under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine – a fancy phrase meaning “lawlessness” – would be sure to suck Russia into a doomsday scenario. So said all of the alternative media. If FBEL wasn’t the only place on the internet telling its audience that no escalation would happen, it certainly felt like it was.

Because at FBEL, where there is at least a limited understanding of the nature of the Masonic hierarchy that runs the Anglo-globalist powers, it was understood that there would be no risk to the control of a managed decline into a scenario where a few people in the West ruled autocratically and despotically over a world-wide slave class. As long as Russia slips the net of the “rules based international order” – or the New World Order – and has weapons that mean that the wannabe Pharaohs will not survive a catastrophic war, then the United States military will never risk pushing its adversary to the brink – as expressed in a previous proffering:

There’s no doubt that Russia might want to blunt US retaliatory capability, but by ensuring the warmongers can’t survive a nuclear war, and making sure that they know they can’t, Russia is clearly as interested in reasserting the concept of mutually assured destruction, and impressing those who especially need to be reminded of it that they are no longer immune.

It was the author’s view that if the United States attacked Syria in a manner that Russia could not ignore, then warfare would not escalate beyond the dishing out of a bloodied nose in the region that would serve as such a shock to its system that the US Government would have no other choice but to acknowledge that further conventional efforts would be pointless (and unconventional ones too terminal).

The strike that did come from the Americans was indeed careful not to snag the Russians so that they might become embroiled, but it wasn’t punches pulled. It was an effort that failed beyond expectation because the Syrians were more than equal to the task of defending themselves against it – see the FBEL article, The Whore of Babylon is fetched a slap – 71 times. As was explained hereabouts at the time, the strike on Syria was for “proving” the false flag – in other words:

The bombing was for the psychological conditioning of a western audience in relation to the claim by the US/UK Government that a chemical weapons attack had taken place in Douma. It represented an attributing of guilt by punishment. It is simple psychology to a) state the policeman is the good guy, and b) decide his shooting victim is therefore bad by dint of being shot. No other proof required.

As for Iran, any attack against her that the Iranians decide to retaliate against will also lead to a humiliating defeat of the American military in the region. Because the Iranians won’t have any direct help, any warfare they embark on won’t be as decisive as the response by which Russia would have answered an assault on her assets in Syria. That being said, the Iranian warfare that entangles it with the USA won’t be Iraq all over again, either. Whichever way anyone might explain what happened in 2003, and then for a decade after, there is no way the adventurism in Iraq can be called an American military victory. (Some call it a disaster).

All the dramatic loss of life on the United States’ side came during the lengthy insurgency that followed swiftly on the heels of the invasion: 4,000 plus Americans were killed. There has been, lately, talk of the USA sending into the environs around Iran the same kind of numbers, in terms of men and materiale, that were used to invade Iraq. Well, to some analysts, even this would be inadequate: the USA would need to nuke Iran, or reintroduce the draft of civilians, according to one. For there will be fighting, this time, and the Iranians won’t faint away. American losses will not mostly accrue in a vain attempt to administer the country after “mission accomplished”. Huge numbers of dead will occur from the very outset.

If there is nothing else that humanity learnt from the testing ground that was the NATO aggression on Serbia in 1999 is that “shock and awe” from the air just isn’t enough; “boots on the ground” are a necessity for reaching the many places that love bombs do not seem to be able to go (so that civilians are not actually spared). Herein lays a major problem: the US probably might not be able to have air dominance over Iran either. The Israeli experience of Syria has created expectations that a country with a remotely coherent air defence system can severely restrict what is supposed to be overwhelmingly superior capability. And then, the US military will not be the only one able to project its self forward. American assets in areas along Iran’s land borders and close to her coastline are not safe from swift Iranian counter, or even pre-emptive strike. Reading around the topic, a swarm of surface to ground missiles appear to be the assumed manner by which Iran will react, but relatively tiny American presences, in countries where the populations are generally hostile to them, are merely short motor vehicle or helicopter rides away for raiding parties (not to mention the Iranian proxy forces already there present). In what has become an infamous case of 2002 the US military had to intervene in a war game exercise (the Millennium Challenge) when the “red” side – not named as such, but easily identifiable as Iran – gave the “blues”, or the US Navy, a good kicking. US ships were “refloated”, and the game continued according to different parameters that allowed the Americans to win. The retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General who had been commanding the “reds” quit his charge after the changes took place, complaining that the exercise, which should have offered a learning experience, was about reinforcing notions of infallibility within the US military. Of course, this exercise would always have been intended from the start as bull-crapology, and a means to shape perception about US military capability. What delicious irony that it demonstrated that when it comes to Iran, only a pretend war will prevent thousands of Americans from being killed. As mentally ill as the US military mindset therefore appears to be, the incident should offer us no surprise to learn about it. As we know as FBEL, do we not, dear reader, the greatest weapon of the Anglo-globalists is “magic”.

Ultimately, though, there is a huge problem for the Americans that begins well before any military engagement with Iran or any other reasonably adequate enemy. The reader might discover that mention of this is hard to find in the analysis of big name experts in the alternative media, and the author would call it only natural: revelation that the US military has serious fundamental problems that adversely affect its capability is ill suited for hysteria-building. The big problem is that the US military is currently suffering from something that is called a “readiness crisis”, and indeed has been suffering for at least twenty years. Although most people probably didn’t appreciate it, the condition was made all too apparent this week just gone when an F-16 crashed into a warehouse in southern California. This wasn’t the first time that a US military plane essentially fell out of the air, and a concentration of such failures in 2018 appears to be the main reason why this deadly illness of the US military, the so-called “readiness crisis”, has broken headlong through its Pentagon-imposed restraint and concealment and into the public consciousness and the arena of open discourse. An F-22, a F-16, a US Navy Harrier and a F/A-18F were the highlights of “a string of U.S. military aircraft accidents [that] have already left nearly 20 service members dead in 2018”.

The April 2018 article from whence the quote comes continues as follows (emphasis added)…

…but it appears Pentagon- and service-wide policies are preventing officials from openly discussing the possibility of larger, systemic problems. Ostensibly aimed at preventing potential enemies from believing the United States is not ready for a fight, these over-arching guidelines do little for operational security, make it difficult for the public to hold anyone accountable, and directly contradict years of U.S. government officials warning that funding cuts and a lack of a formal budget would likely produce exactly this situation.

According to Task & Purpose, U.S. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, then chief of the Pentagon public affairs office, sent out an Email ordering subordinates to limit how much information they disclosed regarding U.S. military readiness. The underlying assumption seems to be that too much talk about how ready the U.S. military is or isn’t for contingencies and crises can only embolden America’s enemies. There is no indication that this guidance, which came straight from Secretary of Defense James Mattis, has changed since then.

As the reader might be able to gauge from the extract, readiness is an issue of spending – or the lack of it so that equipment cannot be maintained. The US military’s suffering in these respects would be acute because the more high-tech a piece of equipment is, the rarer a replacement part would be, and therefore the longer the kit would be out of commission. Moreover, intrinsically linked is a matter of morale – which is the US military’s glass jaw, and potentially the US Government’s Achilles Heel. The subject is perhaps most simply dealt with by quoting the official home page of the United States Army verbatim. The following is from a February 2019 article titled, OPINION: Surveys point to cause of military morale issues – with emphasis added:

In a February 5, 2019 article, Marine veteran Jeff Groom postulates that military members’ spirits are broken “[n]ot because of what they have experienced, but because of what they haven’t experienced. … [A] life deficient in community, solidarity, and shared suffering is, well, depressing.”

“Congress and military leadership have gone all in on the bankrupt idea that comfort and happiness equals morale and morale correlates to readiness. In fact, they got it backward. Providing the resources and time to effectively accomplish the mission is what lifts the spirits of the troops,” Groom says, and other experts agree.

There are secondary benefits that derive from high readiness. Troops that train extensively and have all the equipment they need will have higher morale and confidence,” says Mark Cancian of the Center of Strategic and International Studies.

However, reports of a “military readiness crisis” abound. The conflict between defense budget caps and an unsustainably high operational tempo has resulted in overworked crews, inadequate training, shortage of equipment, and an uptick in military air and sea accidents between 2011 and 2018.

The solution is clear. The Pentagon must prioritize the readiness crisis to give service members a sense of purpose and belonging.

Never mind the solution, from the two extracts, the problem is clear. The US military is debilitated but its top brass won’t deal with it. And it is a problem that goes back further than the year 2011 mentioned in the extract. At the turn of the 21st century, in his Hour of the Time radio shows, with analysis presumably stemming from an effort to appreciate what a state militia should expect from Federal Government forces, William Cooper called the US military “techno-babies”. It meant that the debilitating maintenance issues, which were already manifest even then, and a general lack of training due to shortages, would render the US armed forces useless.

Even the most limited amount of research into this surprising topic reveals the existence of a great deal of conversation about the parlous state of the morale of US military personnel. Apparently, and understandably, there is much concern, and exasperation, verging on resignation, about the failure to get to the bottom and fix what is in fact a state of affairs that never improves. The author suspects that the same style of problem solving as was applied to override the undesirable outcome of the Millennium Challenge is also being applied to the “readiness crisis”; i.e. pretend it never happened. Indeed, not to think along the obvious and simple lines with regards this issue is to refloat the sunken ships and continue according to favourable rules that disguise the calamity.

It is quite clear that the US military is an adornment too rich for a country too poor. It is a line too thinly stretched, and therefore weak all along its length. Nevertheless, US military personnel are told that they are best in the world; unfortunately, it is a “fact” that is expected to be contradicted by real experience – based on day to day living. That the next fight might be a war – not a low intensity conflict – and the means by which the venerated institution they serve will finally have that long-feared comeuppance doled out to it must be psychologically hard when it is an eventuality that is meant to be unthinkable. The personal survival of the serviceman, of course, is intrinsically related; dying for glory is one thing, but being killed in the process of a paralysing and humiliating defeat that busts the myth of American exceptionalism is another.

Consequently, we might imagine that the US Government should be very concerned – and indeed knows only too well – that Iran will be another Vietnam, only this time around, there won’t be Peace and Love and open air music festivals by which to absorb the psychological shock and dissipate it. Naturally, in 2019, there would be other devices relevant to the current age by which to try to control and even deflect the angry reaction of bitterly disappointed and spectacularly deflated military personnel, but there is a question mark as to how effective this will be given that people have changed in a very essential way since the 20th century. Certain people – a good deal of them, in fact – relate very differently than they ought to that totem for 21st century American war which was the attack on the World Trade Centre. Where this manifests in the rank and file who are ordered to fight, and to die for what is in fact an outrageous lie, is surely extremely problematic for a command structure that is seen by its subordinates as criminal and illegitimate. Moreover, not everyone who is in the US military will have joined up because of a fantasy pertaining to supposed family or national honour, or being the best that there can be. When it comes to the crunch, being poor is often more desirable than being dead. And so, if there is the tiniest fear in that criminal and careerist military hierarchy that a “readiness crisis” will translate in a wartime situation to “fragging” – meaning the killing of officers and NCOs by their own men – and, indeed, entire bodies of men being on the brink of mutiny, then there won’t be a war on Iran. Don’t expect one.

 

Update: date as published: Doing some further reading, the author came across a Guardian opinion piece by Peter Westmacott, a former British ambassador to the US. It probably reveals that there is intent to pressure Iran to withdraw from its support of, and participation in an anti-Anglo-globalist axis across the Middle East – thus revealing that in the minds of Anglo-globalist planners, Iran itself is an immovable obstacle for their ambitions in the region. The best that can be hoped for – at the moment – it would seem, is reduction of sphere of influence through bargaining (induced by threats and sanctions). Of course, the Iranians are surely too canny to not understand how they are being played, and will have to be resourceful so as to not succumb to needing to agree to American terms. They must know that it’s better to stop the Anglo-globalist forces encroaching through surrounding territory rather than let them advance to set up camp at the very gates of Tehran (metaphorically speaking). Here is the pertinent extract from said Guardian piece:

There is now a real risk of the world finding itself with another Middle Eastern conflict on its hands, by accident or miscalculation. What can be done? As many of us have been saying to Iranian officials for some time, they should help others to stand up for the nuclear deal by moderating Iran’s behaviour in the region: stop supplying sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah in Lebanon; and stop supplying missiles to the Houthi militia in Yemen that perpetuate the horrific civil war. Iran could use its influence over President Bashar al-Assad to press him to avoid further bloodshed in Syria. And it could end the imprisonment and abuse of dual nationals and other Iranian citizens on specious grounds.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.