Let's talk about US bases being damaged and uninhabitable.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about US bases being uninhabitable in the Middle East and what it means for force projection.

Reporting indicates that since the conflict started, many of the 13 major US military bases in the Middle East have been rendered “all but uninhabitable.” That's quite the phrasing. It looks like the strikes have mainly targeted communications and early warning radar systems and it does look like DoD pulled most troops out of the bases before they were hit.

I'm not joking when I say that some of the headlines are describing the situation involving troops being relocated and unable to work at their normal base because of damage or danger as troops having to work remotely. That's also quite the phrasing.

So, what do a bunch of destroyed or damaged bases mean for the US military and their capabilities? Well, as far as the capabilities, there will be some loss of functionality, but it won't render the units combat ineffective. The military can throw up a facility in a day. At EMeds, we train to build tent hospitals. Picture MASH in a day.

Facilities built like that are functional, but I would have preferred to be in a real hospital. So having to evacuate, I'm sorry, work remotely isn't ideal, but it isn't a capability killer. That being said, the cost to repair these facilities will be immense assuming the host countries will allow them to be rebuilt after we got them attacked. From the descriptions, we're definitely talking about billions.

Furthermore, this is going to absolutely undermine faith in US protection. Setting aside the fact that the US has apparently hit an Iraqi military clinic, there's another issue. If the US can't protect its own installations, other countries will be less likely to believe the US can protect them. Effects further down the line will include declining US arm sales. If the systems can't protect against Iran's arsenal and your primary adversary is Iran, it doesn't make much sense to spend billions on hardware that doesn't work.

Most commentators are focusing on the direct conflict. Much like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the actual fighting is only part of the battle. Wars, at least theoretically, are fought to advance the interests of the state. You know, when they aren't being fought to distract from headlines. In this case, it's hard to see how US interests were advanced or how they could have been.

Much like how after a few weeks of fighting in Ukraine, there was no way for Russia to exit the war in a more powerful position than it entered. The US is unlikely to end this fight in a better position than it began.

The bases are concrete and steel. They can be rebuilt relatively quickly, but the damage to US reputation will take much, much longer.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.