If it weren’t for the fact most of it is coming from people (and bots) who hate the U.S. and/or are active supporters of the mad mullah’s terrorist regime, I would be surprised at all the accounts on X holding forth that it is wrong to engage in surprise attacks on your enemies, and that sinking the Iranian warship was a violation of international law. The fact that most of the latter couldn’t tell you the difference between the Hague and Geneva Conventions, or which Geneva convention is applicable, pretty much sums it up. Let me expand a bit on what I posted in response to a odious bit of drivel.
First, we are in a de facto war as Congress has not formally declared a state of war. Then again, Congress has not formally declared a state of war since WWII. It has approved actions under the War Powers Act, and under UN obligations (Korea) but the old forms of formal declarations hasn’t be used or honored in decades and is not likely to be any time soon. That’s a topic for another day, but most modern conflicts are likely to start with a surprise and end only when one party (if just two parties) isn’t standing.
Second, one can argue that Iran has been in a state of de jure war with us since 1979. They’ve been quite open about it, sacked our embassy, killed a thousand or so troops and civilians (some of whom were kidnapped), etc., etc., etc., as Yul used to say. They have funded quite a few terrorist organizations around the world as well, including some in our own hemisphere. Good odds they have sleeper cells in the U.S. right now as previously discussed here. There de jure state of war also applies to Israel.
Now, the U.S. and Israel looked at the board, saw Iran was not going to stop working to get nuclear weapons, was ramping up funding and supplies to various terrorist groups, and building up huge stockpiles of conventional drones and ballistic missiles, and were a major threat and not just a PITA. They constituted an existential threat to both countries, to Western Civilization and its concepts, and thus to the world. Game on as in a year or less they would be in a position to start the version of Armageddon that would bring out the hidden imam and delight their savage little hearts even if it didn’t bring him back. So, game on.
Iran chose to receive in this game of FAFO, and they have not enjoyed the FO. Their military, IRGC, and basij (sorry, not sorry, not capitalizing those jerks) and general leadership are in the process of being hunted and eliminated. While regime change may not be the formal goal, it will be an end result provided no one chicken’s out. Lot of people who’s rice bowls are being upset, and/or who just hate the U.S. including far too many American politicians, are pushing openly and covertly for the latter. Check out Data Republican on X for a LOT of good intel.
Somehow, both in the attack on Iran and the sinking of the cruiser, a number of useful idiots are out there screaming about how surprise isn’t fair. Personal take: if you are in a fair fight, your tactics sucketh more than a 10 to the -16th tor vacuum and so do you. Hate to break it to the defeatist chorus (who I suspect know very good and well and are just lying to foment problems) but from individual to squad, squad to senior leadership, achieving surprise is taught as a good thing to do, because the people doing the teaching are not idiots. Want a good primer on surprise at the strategic level? Read David Weber’s Honor Harrington series as it is discussed in detail (it is David after all) in a number of the books. Seriously, good reads anyway but a lot there for leadership.
Now, I can’t truly wrap my head around some of the arguments about the sinking of the Iranian military vessel. So, let’s have some fun.
It was a surprise attack! No Excrement! (My Godmother reads and has not been happy when I cuss). That’s classic submarine warfare be it against military vessels (a very good idea as they can and often do shoot back) or civilian merchant vessels of those with whom you are at war. Both are valid and fair targets per the laws and customs of war. You don’t give warning so you can be sure to sink them and not have them get away.
They were in international waters! Ah, take a look at where the majority of military and civilian ships sunk were sunk in previous wars. Go ahead, I’ll wait. <eye roll> In case you are wondering, I’m aware of no treaty and am prepared to say there is no treaty which we have ratified forbidding such.
The sub didn’t render aid to/pick-up survivors! They pretty much never have in the history of submarine warfare. Subs have a very limited space, limited supplies, no spare space, and a relatively small crew. As such, while it may be that a single person or a couple of people have been picked up by a sub, no sub is going to try to pick up a group of survivors that can easily outnumber its crew and for which they have no room to put them. Rescue has always been on surface ships and during WWII there were even ships designated for such in some convoys. Surface ships have larger crews, some free (if not very comfortable) space for housing survivors, etc. Even when subs picked up downed pilots in the Pacific in WWII, they were transferred to surface ships or land bases ASAP. Again, also, no treaty of which I am aware or to which we are a signatory obligates submarines to do so.
They were sailing from India/an exercise! So flipping what? They were an enemy combatant from a Navy that we had said from the start we were going to destroy in toto. They were sailing for a combat zone, even if it was home, with no signal of intent of non-belligerence. The captain could have initiated communications with neutral parties or the U.S. to say if he was just trying to get his crew home and would not attempt to take part in combat. He could have sought neutral port (see Graf Spee for limited example) for a time or allowed his crew and ship to be interned for the duration. He had options, did not take them, and as such was fair game by the laws and customs of war both.
They didn’t pose a threat! By who’s standards? They were a warship, and equipped with both anti-submarine sensor and weapons. They had surface capabilities as well. Even if every weapon was unloaded and every magazine empty or locked up tight, they were a threat as they could become armed at any time, including after returning home. Again, by the laws and customs of war, a fair and valid target.
I could go on, but that hits the high points. The defeatist chorus is extremely opposed to: winning any war where any credit can go to Trump; winning any war against a terrorist regime they’ve protected since 1979; winning any war that helps the survival of Israel; and, winning any war that saves or advances the tenets of Western Civilization which they hate almost as much as they hate themselves. That a lot of them are the so-called ‘credentialed elites’ that have been screwing things up by the numbers for several decades now should be a surprise to no one.
Please check out my Winter 26 Bleg!
Getting hit by lightning is not fun! If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, and to start a truly new life, feel free to hit the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo, use the options in the Tip Jar in the upper right, or drop me a line to discuss other methods. There is also the Amazon Wish List in the Bard’s Jar. It is thanks to your gifts and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
I had someone yesterday tell me that Pete Hegseth saying the US would hunt down and destroy anyone threatening the US was a war crime.
Not the actual actions of doing such things – which are not war crimes – but his statement itself.
We live amongst people who have surrounded themselves with dangerous fantasies. Who quite deliberately will believe the most outrageous bits of agitprop if it means Orange Man Bad. It appears to not matter a whit that we are in actuality destroying an actual handmaid’s tale theocratic thugocracy, they are rising up in very vocal defense of the mad mullahs because they hate Trump that much.
At the first, wish I was surprised. On the latter, you are on target. The hatred for Trump blinds them to anything and everything. I would also add that they truly do hate themselves more than they hate Western Civ and even Trump. It is sad, and dangerous for the rest of us as they would bring it all down to ‘get’ Trump — and even that will not slake the hate that fills them.
“who’s rice bowls”, “no one chicken’s out”, “By who’s standards”? A great article, but please proofread.
Turnabout’s fair play, so let’s give surface sailors a chance. In The Cruel Sea, HMS Compass Rose sinks a German U-boat and rescues the surviving crew. The German skipper tells Capt. Ericson they were only sunk because the corvette took them by surprise.
“It is war,” says Ericson, “I’m sorry if it is too hard for you.”
That seems apropos.
It does indeed
“It is war,” says Ericson, “I’m sorry if it is too hard for you.”
Amen to that!
Sooner or later, we’ll come to the conclusion that we can’t live in the same country as the Left, and we’ll have to repeat the expulsion of the Tories.
The defeatist chorus is extremely opposed to:
While those are true, there’s an underlying fundamental piece you don’t mention: the Progressive Way of War.
The Progressive Way of War began after WW1 with the naval restrictions. And it continued after WW2 with more baloney. The idea was to 1) prevent them from suffering from actual war again, and 2) to maintain a balance of power where they would never lose control.
WW1 was such a devastating war that all of Europe basically descended into a “Please don’t hit me!” phase. And they tried (as Progressives do) to control things with treaties and laws. Because, if everyone signs this piece of paper, then they won’t do the things the piece of paper says they won’t do, right? (Very much like, “If we pass more gun laws – despite not enforcing them – we will have less gun ‘violence’, right?”) After WW2 they were feeling their oats and tried it all again. This time they had a very Progressive USA on their side and thus began the era of “You can’t win wars; you should simply stop whomever we decide is the ‘bad guy’ and then sit him in the corner for a while.” A sort of gentler, kinder warfare. Then the Progs came up with all sorts of restrictions on how to fight: you can’t hurt non-combatants (and we’ll define that very broadly, even if they’re actively supporting the combatant forces), you can’t fight outside the borders of the one country with the ‘bad guy’, you can’t use the exceptions we built in over the abuse of those non-combatant rules, you can’t fight in the War Room, etc. All with the goal of preventing the scary thing of Real War.
That’s the foundation of all their other arguments that you clearly state. It’s fear – fear of death and danger, and fear of losing their place. (That last is also why they’re so upset by Trump’s insistence they do their part in NATO – they can’t maintain their little empire in Europe if they had to do the mean and awful things like build tanks; they want the USA to be their amoral vicious pit bull who tears apart the ‘bad guys’ without them getting their hair mussed.) Ultimately, WW1 made them cowards.