Dem
47
GOP
53
"Yeah, yeah," you're saying, "Tell me something I don't know." We've given plenty of attention to the myriad ways in which Donald Trump and his underlings have perpetuated one of the biggest military screw-ups in American history. But there are two new angles to the story that both hit big yesterday, and that we think we should pass along.
First up is the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, which just so happens to be named after a president who did not screw up HIS war. That ship left its home port (San Diego) last November for what was supposed to be a normal deployment. However, it was redirected to the Middle East when the U.S. attacked Iran, and has been there ever since. That adds up to 250 days since leaving its home port, with the last 200+ of those spent out at sea. This is a modern record for consecutive days spent at sea.
Earlier this month (August 3), one of the sailors assigned to the carrier went overboard, and was rescued about an hour later. That phrase, "went overboard," covers quite a lot of territory. A sailor can go overboard by accident, of course. Or they can do so deliberately, in an attempt to take their own lives.
The Pentagon is taking the position that the incident was accidental, and issued a statement asserting that the seas were unusually rough that day. On the other hand, the sailor's wife insists that it was a suicide attempt. In an interview (for which she was granted anonymity), she shared texts from her husband that spoke to his poor mental health, and that indicate the husband tried to get help on board and was brushed off. She also said that the Navy did not inform her of the incident until more than 4 days after it happened. Further, the Pentagon resisted inquiries from reporters and lawmakers until the wife went public with her story. So, if you're trying to decide which side is telling the truth, well, you don't generally engage in cover-up-like behavior unless you've got something to hide.
What is certain is that the incident has opened a Pandora's Box, if you will, and has put the Abraham Lincoln under a very big microscope. There are now reports that suggest that... well, everything you think might go wrong if a giant ship does not put into any port, home or otherwise, for 200+ days, is going wrong. In other words, lack of food and potable water, lack of other supplies, mail service disruptions (sometimes extending for months), low morale, and several other possible suicide attempts.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is now on the defensive, as he is under the same giant microscope as the ship is. Yesterday, he found the friendliest media outlet possible (Newsmax), and did an "interview" with them in which he decreed:
Listen, we make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody. What they do in those high seas and those austere conditions with less port calls, it's incredible.
Given that his job could be on the line, and that he's an inveterate liar, there may be no less reliable narrator here than Hegseth. If he really had nothing to hide, or to apologize for, why would he choose an outlet that is only going to toss him softball questions, and that will not push back against any statement, no matter how outlandish?
The military establishment has understood, since at least the Vietnam War, that you cannot leave military personnel in combat conditions for too many days in a row. The stress is too much, and can (and will) lead to disastrous outcomes like the My Lai Massacre. Being stuck in actual combat conditions for 200+ days, without a break, would be unheard of in the modern military. We don't know if the Trump/Hegseth administration was sloppy here because "in a supporting role" and "out at sea" are not exactly the same thing as "in combat conditions," or because they had no choice due to poor planning. Either way, the Navy needs to take a long look at what's happened here, taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.
The U.S.S. George Washington, which is also named after a president who did not screw up HIS war, has been deployed to the Persian Gulf to relieve the Abraham Lincoln. The Pentagon claims this was in the works before the situation became a national scandal. Maybe that is true, although given that the DoD has been less-than-forthright about pretty much every other aspect of this story, maybe it's not. There's also been no clear timeline given as to when the Abraham Lincoln will be able to stand down. Tomorrow? Next week? Arbor Day? Christmas Eve? Your guess is apparently as good as theirs.
Anyhow, this is a reminder/wake-up call that even if soldiers aren't dying every day (in contrast to, say, Vietnam), the military personnel deployed to the Middle East are still paying a steep price. Meanwhile, the limit imposed by the War Powers Act is 60 days (with another 30 days allowed for withdrawal). So, how can a Navy ship have a 200+ day combat deployment without the 60/90-day ceiling being reached? Must be the New Math.
The second big news item yesterday, meanwhile, involves materiel. Everybody knows, at this point, that the U.S. is running low on its high-tech missiles, thanks to the administration blowing through so many munitions while achieving so little. And, in a story first reported by The Washington Post, it turns out the U.S. is running short on high-tech drones, too.
The drones in question are MQ-9 Reaper drones, which have apparently been described by some officials as "the most valuable player" in America's arsenal. They cost between $30 and $50 million each, they are used primarily to deploy ordinance, and the U.S. has 190 of them. Well, actually, it HAD 190 of them. The Iranians have shot 45 of them out of the air, leaving the size of the fleet at 145. That means that not only is the U.S. constrained in terms of munitions, it's also becoming constrained in terms of how those munitions are delivered.
We will close this with a question we really don't know the answer to. There's an old saying that the U.S. has a bad habit of always trying to win the last war, and struggles to adapt to the realities of the current war. Iran is, at best, a second-rate military power with a GDP that is less than 1% of the United States'. And yet, the Iranians have basically brought the U.S. military to its knees. Eventually, the U.S. will cut its losses and run; the only questions left are how long that will take, and how bad those losses will be.
But here's the question we just don't know about. Is this fiasco because the Pentagon was ill-prepared for a war fought by a scrappy opponent, armed with a swarm of cheap drones, and willing to suffer all kinds of punishment if needed? Was the military brass trying to win Persian Gulf War, Part II, as opposed to Iran War, Part I? Or is the problem here that Trump and Hegseth are morons who have no idea what they are doing, and who tried to win a war solely with aerial bombardment, even though that never, ever works?
One hopes that once the military establishment and civilian governments are under the control of people willing to confront hard truths, the question we ask will get a lot of scrutiny, and the U.S.—with its trillion-dollars-or-so annual military budget—won't get caught so flat-footed the next time out. (Z)