this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
71 points (98.6% liked)

politics

29087 readers
1632 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Air superiority is supposed to deliver a quick triumph. But history has shown that promise to be written on the wind

To explore the roots of Donald Trump’s Iran military strategy and the pugnacious rhetoric of his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, means looking back 105 years. In 1921, a year before Benito Mussolini and his blackshirts marched on Rome to launch the Fascist era, an Italian general named Giulio Douhet published The Command of the Air, proposing a revolution in warfare.

Victory in the future, he said, would no longer come from the grinding trench combat of the great war. Instead it meant large-scale aerial bombardments, targeting not just combatants but civilians and civilian infrastructure and logistics.

“[It] is much more important to destroy a railroad station, a bakery, a war plant, or to machine-gun a supply column, moving trains, or any other behind-the-lines objective, than to strafe or bomb a trench.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

They thought once the Khomeni was got rid of the "opposition" in Iran would take over.

They believed all those fake AI videos that Israel produced.

There is no "opposition" in Iran, outside of their own political system. Almost no one remembers the Shah, and those who do don't remember him fondly.

[–] workerONE@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Just go home and put up a mission accomplished banner and stop worrying with Israel

'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

With diligent planning and help from our allies and a clear objective victory from the air is achievable.

We just had none of those things.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

With diligent planning and help from our allies and a clear objective victory from the air is achievable.

This has literally never been true, and there are no examples of this ever happening in history, besides maybe the only use of atomic bombs, on Japan. Pure delusion.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Iraq 1991.

ETA: Ground pounders big mad.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

After air superiority was obtained.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

True, and I'm not saying air superiority is not useful or critical, but it alone does not and cannot win a war. Your own example proves that wrong.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah but even the ground war needed a clear plan, coordination with allies, and the other stuff I’m too drunk/high to remember.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Certainly can't disagree with that

[–] sepi@piefed.social 6 points 5 hours ago

What you are failing to see is that air superiority is a component, not THE ONLY COMPONENT necessary.

[–] thorhop@sopuli.xyz 9 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Help to do what, invade another country? Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't enough?

Iran in particular is designed as a state that can operate like terrorist cells. You can't just destroy a central body and the government goes away.

And again, why invade? Iran was on the brink of revolution. It would have sorted itself out. But now, when the strictness of war is ar play?

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 points 5 hours ago

Iran was on the brink of revolution, it’s state under financial pressure. It would have sorted itself out

Starving a country via sanctions has never resulted in a revolution, except maybe South Africa. While the stated purpose is to cause enough misery within the population they overthrow the government, the real purpose is to weaken it so it can't defend its people when we're ready to bomb them.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, obviously.

[–] zwerg@feddit.org 4 points 5 hours ago

Before all of that, you need to define your objectives, otherwise anything or nothing can be a 'victory'.

[–] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

Not the U.S. - the retard pushing the buttons. Be better off if he was pushing daisies..