They’re telling me a great empire will be destroyed if I attack Persia. Even the oracles who don’t like me very much, very nasty, they all said to me, “Sir, it’s one of the great empires, and it’ll be destroyed. And all because you attacked Persia.” That’s what they’re telling me.
I really don’t think there is such a thing as “too much” tactical success. Tactical success in itself is generally good. There is such a thing as tactical success combined with strategic failure. And strategic failure will almost always outweigh (and in effect undo) any tactical successes.
I think we’re saying pretty much the same thing. Tactical success can be rendered irrelevant by incompetence at the political-strategic level.
Now we’re getting into questions of *competent* administrations versus *wise* administrations…
These political and strategic blunders could very well waste our forces’ tactical victories rather than translate them (as we should all hope) into a better state of peace.
More seriously, the administration has deployed limited military means while publicly declaring unlimited political ends (regime change)—effectively putting the Iranian regime on death ground and giving them little apparent incentive not to retaliate wherever they can and fight to the end.
A competent administration would have planned ahead to anticipate and head off Iran’s most likely and most dangerous courses of action in response to our strikes. There seem to have been significant failures at the political level in this.
A competent administration would have the basic political-diplomatic skills to persuade a Congress controlled by its own party, allies, and the public to back military action against one of the world’s most odious authoritarian regimes. It is telling that this is beyond the abilities of this admin.
Two things can be true at once: U.S. forces are performing brilliantly at the operational and tactical levels while U.S. political leaders are demonstrating remarkable incompetence and incoherence at the political and strategic levels. The latter may undo the gains of the former.
Big issue: Democrats need to make more of a home in their institutions for “hard” defense strategy. The think tanks that do respected defense work are either non/bipartisan or conservative/GOP aligned—none are expressly Dem. Who is Brent Sadler’s counterpart at @americanprogress.bsky.social?
They want to keep us afraid, and assume we cannot do math on how many polling places there are compared to ICE agents. They are trying to get us to simply not show up.
They literally threatened to arrest me yesterday and literally backed down instantly.
Cooperation with Copenhagen and Nuuk may offer Washington more strategic leverage than ownership ever could, argues Spenser A. Warren.
“If we break [our alliances] for pride and power and greed, then we don’t just break an alliance; we break our own character. We diminish ourselves in every way that matters, and no amount of newly sovereign frozen ground can obscure our national shame.”
www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/o...
We're now living in the opening scene of Casablanca.
Two drunken Minnesota frat boys do a better job covering the ICE story than the New York Times.
In a sign of the Trump administration’s shifting priorities, the Pentagon now has 12 warships assigned to the waters around the Caribbean, versus only six in the Middle East, according to a Navy official. www.wsj.com/politics/nat...
One reason ICE’s lawlessness is personal for me: my grandfather lived through the rise of Nasser’s xenophobic and antisemitic fascist regime in Egypt. When he was forced into exile, it all started when a military police officer stopped him and demanded to see his papers.
A reminder of what America means in the world from AO1 John Mooney, recounting USS Midway’s rescue of Vietnamese refugees in the South China Sea. Shared in @ronaldreagan.bsky.social’s 1982 Christmas and 1989 farewell addresses.
“Hello, America Sailor—hello, Freedom Man.”
youtu.be/KiWdKcsEgS8?...
Again, throwing Kyiv to the wolves in nothing more than a race to a Thanksgiving headline is profoundly wrong and, frankly, un-American.
In this latest episode of #SeaControl, I host Steve Brock and @hunterstires.bsky.social to discuss their recent @cimsec.bsky.social article, "Maritime Statecraft and Its Future."
open.spotify.com/episode/6FAb...
I’m pleased to share my latest article, “Don’t Give Up the Shipyards,” out now in @defenseone.bsky.social. Grateful to @navybook.bsky.social for bringing this work forward.
www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/1...
A comprehensive strategy for maritime statecraft.
This is the strategy pursued by the prior SECNAV. For the first time, the authors offer an open discussion on its logic and path forward in @cimsec.bsky.social, authored by @hunterstires.bsky.social and Steve Brock:
cimsec.org/maritime-sta...
NEW: The Kremlin is attempting to use all available informational avenues to convince the US, Europe, and Ukraine to acquiesce to the Kremlin’s demands by convincing them that a Russian victory in Ukraine is certain when it is anything but.
More in tonight's assessment: isw.pub/UkrWar102025
My latest for the @atlanticcouncil.bsky.social.
BLUF: Peninsular stability is linked directly to Taiwan Strait stability. Military planners should approach the simultaneous threats of the #PRC and #DPRK with this fact in mind. #WriteFightWin
www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-res...
The success of America’s maritime renaissance depends on sustained, long-term commitment—and the recognition that for a nation as immutably dependent on the sea as the United States, maritime strategy is grand strategy. 4/4
Now that Steve and I have completed our terms of government service in January and June respectively, this essay is the first time the strategy's architects have fully set out its underlying rationale and key lines of effort in print in a public forum. 3/4
This strategy to rebuild America's comprehensive maritime power, both commercial and naval, has made significant advances and has demonstrated notable intellectual staying power across the political transition. 2/4
