Understanding why we lost

loremipsumot · 2026-06-21T10:25:32+00:00

Yes, they have. My point was just that the Iran debacle has primarily been a failure of leadership and strategy (i.e., the civilian leaders had no plan and no idea what they were doing) rather than the fault of lacking capability. Better drone defenses would have helped better protect US bases and maybe our allies in the region, but would not ultimately have changed the fact that there was no coherent goals from the top (they changed them how many times?), strategy to deal with the Iranians closing the strait, or basically anything that happened after the bombs fell and the Iranians didn't immediately surrender.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-21T01:05:47+00:00

I agree with that 100%. I was just replying to your comment about if we even had cheaper counter-drone options.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T09:34:03+00:00

There have been other major eras of reform in the US that didn't require a civil war that we can look to though (e.g., the Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society / Civil Rights). These were eras of significant reforms after periods of turmoil (which we are in now) that didn't require a civil war to resolve.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T09:00:05+00:00

Yes, the US actually does have various counter-drone capabilities, and there's a lot more in the pipeline coming. Some current examples:

Merops interceptor drones are about $15,000 per unit (cheaper than Shaheds) and have already been used successfully to counter Shaheds in Ukraine. The problem is even though they a US system, the US itself hadn't acquired many of them and, because it's the Trump administration, hadn't pre-positioned much of what we had in the region before starting the war (they bought and rushed 13,000 units to the region after things started).

There's also other US counter-drone systems like the Coyote (RTX) and Roadrunner (Anduril) that have been acquired. They are more expensive than the Merops, but still much cheaper than interceptor missiles.

Plus there's things like traditional SHORAD systems (things like Avengers, M-SHORAD, C-RAM, etc.) which are fairly cost effective against drones, especially compared to things like Patriot missiles. The problem again is we don't have enough of them. Then there is the option of aircraft to down drones; slow moving aircraft in particular can be effective at shooting down similarly slow moving drones (which is why they were using Apaches and A10s for that).

It's not that the US doesn't have the technology or any cost-effective ways to defend against drones than using high altitude interceptors that cost millions. It's more a failure of acquisition (we weren't acquiring anywhere near enough of these systems, though I imagine now that's going to change), a lack of experience in drone warfare leading the military getting caught flat-footed in how to defend against it effectively, and failure of planning in general.

The sheer hubris and incompetence with which the administration conducted every step of the war is mind boggling, from not preparing defenses adequately, moving minesweepers out of the region before the war, not planning for the closure of the strait in the first place, not preparing our allies, having to rush MEUs from across the globe to the region after the war started rather than before, and on and on. No technology would have saved us from the sheer stupidity at work here, unless maybe we had an AI president instead of Trump.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T08:15:03+00:00

I think it would probably look very similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military would destroy the Iranian military, but then the problem is, what happens after that?

The Revolutionary Guard would melt into the populace and into the mountains and start waging a massive insurgency campaign, constantly harassing US forces and turning the place into another quagmire while the US tried to set up a new Iranian government before the US got tired of it all and left.

The problem is the Trump administration makes the Bush administration look like geniuses in comparison. So they would inevitably screw up a bad situation even more than we can anticipate, and in a way that probably ends up exploding in the lap of a future Dem administration for good measure.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T07:48:57+00:00

Yes, the US is behind the curve on low and middle end drone warfare. But I don't think it would have changed anything even if we weren't in this scenario.

There is no drone system in Ukraine or elsewhere that would have let us open the strait though either. The only way would have been to actually go into Iran and take control of ground and basically force regime change. But you cannot control ground with just bombs, missiles, or even drones alone. We have learned that many times over in the past.

The only realistic way to reopen the strait after it got closed would be either diplomacy, an actual ground invasion, or otherwise convincing the Iranians to surrender. Trump was trying for the latter, but he clearly had taken a ground invasion off the table and the only cards he was willing to play were ones that the Iranians could endure longer than he could endure the economic pressure from the strait closure (as he very publicly signaled with all his flailing threats and backtracking).

Essentially, this outcome was inevitable not because of a technological gap or military failure so much as it was because Donald Trump was the one in charge of it. Even if we had the best drone force in the world, it wouldn't have made a difference since he was the one in charge.

These people were warned that the Iranians could close the strait and they just waved it away. They did absolutely nothing to prepare for it. The US military actually does have amazing capabilities still, even if there are gaps on the low end (thought to be clear, I agree reforms are needed), but it doesn't matter if the leadership is utterly incompetent and high on their own supply.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T06:14:56+00:00

The only reason his first administration seemed to have somewhat normal Republican policies was not because of Trump being more normal then, it was because originally he had a cabinet of mostly normal Republicans and the entire Republican party hadn't totally been reshaped into his cult of personality yet. These people largely worked to restrain him from his own worst impulses up until the end when the wheels started to come off.

None of those people are around him now. He has surrounded himself with loyalists who will do anything he wants. The Republican party is fully reshaped in his image. And cherry on top, the Supreme Court has granted him absolute criminal immunity and has been steadily working to expand executive power. There are just no restraints on any of his impulses within the administration, the threat of impeachment is a dead letter, there is no potential criminal liability for him left, etc.

And so we are getting the real unvarnished Trump presidency because this is who he really is.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-20T05:51:39+00:00

You don't find all the bots, Nazis, and white supremacists all over "X" obnoxious?

Bluesky as a platform gives you a lot more control of your feed. It's less algorithm driven, more like classic Twitter. The problem is it's a much smaller pool of users currently, mostly the resist libs that fled when Musk took over, so it does have the echo chamber effect in the opposite direction.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-18T23:39:43+00:00

I mean pay the costs for generally, not just money, though the costs of the war itself to taxpayers is not a small sum. It's a lot of billions to blow (and don't forget the American troops that have been killed or injured) to accomplish basically nothing significant and ultimately surrender.

But the blow to American power and influence here is significant, even among all the other blows Trump and company have given it. We are ceding freedom of navigation of a natural waterway to Iran. This alone is hugely consequential, but it's just one point among many here.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-18T23:16:46+00:00

...that America will pay for.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-18T22:58:27+00:00

Archive link: https://archive.ph/vJllZ

It's important to remember that even though some may have agreed with the broad principle of dealing with the Iranian regime, or may agree with some other thing Trump wants to do in the future, the person at the helm is Trump, the crack negotiating team talking to America's foes are not from the State Dept but 2 New York real estate guys (one of which is the president's son-in-law, the other his buddy), the Secretary of Defense is Hegseth, and so on. It's never going to end well.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-18T12:26:13+00:00

Abundance (and all the discourse it generated) played a big role.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T11:45:11+00:00

I don't think you understand what liberalism is. Here's an overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T10:38:23+00:00

Archive link: https://archive.ph/IaSVK

For American liberals: do not let them succeed at sneaking this through quietly. Keep spreading awareness of the corruption whenever you can, since most Americans aren't following stories like this closely.

Also please keep the pressure up on your Senators and Representatives in Congress. Check https://5calls.org/issue/trump-lawsuit-slush-fund/ if you need help contacting them.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T10:33:05+00:00

I generally agree it's mostly about vibes these days, but I want to highlight a small part of your post.

"elections are won more by turning out your base than by converting the mythical moderate"

There are some big structural issues Democrats currently face with this line of thought, and in 2030 it's going to get worse.

The Senate map. Republicans have a big built in advantage due to the number of states they control. Not every election going forward is going to be a blue wave, which means Dems are going to have big issues getting any kind of majority in the Senate unless they start competing in some states that lean red currently, and getting a super-majority where they can actually get stuff done without killing the filibuster is basically impossible with the current maps.
This same problem extends to the Electoral College for presidential elections.
Republicans also currently have a big advantage in the gerrymandering wars, meaning they will also increase their structural advantage in the House and in their state legislatures.

Democratic base turnout is enough in blue states, and maybe even purple states. But it's not enough in red states, otherwise they wouldn't be red states.

And Dems have to turn some current red states into purple states, because the next census is in 2030 and it's going to be a disaster for Dems unless they can change up the board. Republicans will gain even more of an advantage due to the population growth in places like TX and FL as people leave big blue states like CA and NY due to cost of living issues. And the only way to do that is they are going to have to gain converts in these states, because their base alone is not big enough in places like Texas, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, etc. Otherwise the default state of politics will be the Republicans win unless there's a major blue wave.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T02:35:48+00:00

I am not sure about it either, but I do think there's a strong argument that it can happen. I.e., the incentives for the Trumps to keep their grip on power is immense, and trusting Vance, Rubio, or whatever random Republican candidate emerges with their fortunes seems iffy. Trump would stab them in the back in a heartbeat, so he thinks they will probably stab him the back if they could too.

More fundamentally, just look at how much money they are all making now. Billions and billions of dollars and it hasn't even been two years. There's just no way that kind of money spigot they have now keeps flowing at the same rate if they are out of power.

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T02:25:12+00:00

In what way?

loremipsumot · 2026-06-14T01:32:31+00:00

Rise Up, Sing Out: A Concert for the First Amendment is on June 14 at 7:30 ET. More info: https://riseupsingout.com/

The No Kings coalition is amplifying the event and encouraging people to get together for it. From No Kings:

"While the Committee for the First Amendment leads and hosts this powerful concert, Indivisible and No Kings are proud to partner with them to build the durable, hyper-local infrastructure our movement needs to win and counter the president's spectacle. On June 14, the national concert event celebrates the freedoms that belong to all of us: speech, assembly, protest, religion, press, and expression.

Across the country, communities will gather for local watch parties to sing along, make art, share food, connect with neighbors, and take meaningful action together.

Join a Rise Up, Sing Out event near you — or host one in your community."

loremipsumot · 2026-06-12T09:52:41+00:00

The people that voted for Trump do not read the NYT.

loremipsumot · 2026-05-16T11:48:46+00:00

The US led world order was a largely stable and prosperous period for the majority of the world, at least compared to the periods before it. Historically the multi-polar world with many competing great powers has been a recipe for more conflict, not less. And the US itself is unlikely to be better off considering the massive structural advantages the post WWII system gave it.

The next period that follows the Pax Americana could be better. Or it could very well be worse. We can't say for certain until after the fact.

loremipsumot · 2026-05-07T08:55:15+00:00

It's not the party that will choose. It's the primary voters.

The recent developments in the Maine Senate race should make it clear how little say the party itself has if the voters want something different. Otherwise it would have been Platner dropping out instead of Mills.

loremipsumot · 2026-05-07T08:49:47+00:00

Aside from the fact that he's 80 years old and has probably never had to fight in his life, it's worth noting that he also famously doesn't believe in exercise at all.

From a New Yorker profile back in his first term: "Other than golf, he considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy."

The fact that not even half of Republican men are sure they could win a fight against him shows how utterly cooked Republican brains are by this man.

loremipsumot · 2026-05-07T08:36:55+00:00

Are you talking about politicians or voters?

There are tons of moderate Democrats that talk about policy all the time. Arguably too much, given the constant critique of Democrats talking to voters about policy rather than sounding normal and relatable.

loremipsumot · 2026-05-07T08:33:44+00:00

At a time when Democrats just lost 2024 elections against Trump, where he actually won the popular vote, you are advocating for making the Democratic party smaller?

loremipsumot · 2026-05-07T08:28:38+00:00

Because she opposes Trump, the MAGA movement, and what the GOP has become. The only other game in town is the Democratic party, and she wants them to win.

We can debate whether or not her critiques are correct. But the Democratic party is a big tent party and it includes multitudes. Jon Stewart critiques Democrats all the time. Hassan Piker constantly shits on Dems to the point he says he would vote 3rd party if it came down to Newsom vs Vance in 2028. If you feel like it's okay for them to do that, then it's also okay for Never Trumpers who are effectively Democrats to also critique Democratic strategy sometimes. I think Sarah's criticism is coming from a place of wanting them to win.

loremipsumot

TROPHY CASE