Hacker News Reader

Many of the bases were created to fight the "war on terror" and conduct a decades long massive regional regime change that cost the U.S. trillions of dollars. Anything that changes the course on this and prevents more global empire building is a good thing... Even at the cost of losing bases that never should have been built to begin with.

View on HN

100% this. I've been vehemently opposed to the war in Iran, but only because I didn't expect it to be anywhere near as chronically catastrophic as it has been. I expected more of a long slow bleed like Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan 2.0. If I knew the outcome ahead of time, I would have been fully supportive of it. At the risk of sounding like 1984, losing this war will be the biggest victory in modern times for the US. Our hegemonic geopolitical strategy has been very damaging to both the US and to the entire world. We're not going to be king of the world, and we shouldn't endeavor to be such. Getting hided by a minor power is going to force us to rethink everything, and I think only good can come from this.

Even if the clowns in charge think the take-away is 'we need even more bombs, and bigger ones', they're going to learn that when we're expending this much on a relatively minor power like Iran, the economics/resources for this scale of war against a major power simply don't exist. We're looking at Proud Prophet 2.0 [1] which was also a huge victory in defeat for the US. It's unfortunate that in the past we were able to learn from wargames, whereas now we had to see things play out in real life. Perhaps next time when we do a wargame against Iran and lose [2], we shouldn't just change the rules so we can win.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet#Impact

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exer...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com