đź‘€ Waltz, SecDef SignalGate | Signalgate 2.0 Oct 2025

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 575
  • Views: 30K
  • Politics 
I keep hearing the Trump Administration and their defenders claim the attack on the Houthis was completely successful as a defense, but setting aside that is not the primary issue here, it is worth examining whether it is fair to call an incomplete mission a success?

Background (3/21 article):

“…Officials said the new round of strikes in Yemen may last for weeks and that they are now less worried about casualties. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Sunday claimed the renewed military operation is necessary due to attacks on Navyships and shipping, telling Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that "ships haven't been able to go through for over a year without being shot at."

However, as leaders like Hegseth demand the Houthis halt their attacks as a condition of ending the strikes, multiple officials at the Pentagon, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely discuss the current situation, told Military.com that the last Houthi attack they were aware of occurred in December -- months ago and before President Donald Trump even took office.

In his Fox News appearance, Hegseth said that, around that time frame, "we sent a ship through, it was shot at 17 times," but he didn't offer any further details about whether it was a U.S. warship or merchant ship.

U.S. Central Command did announce two attacks against U.S. warships and merchant ships that month, but the munitions used didn't appear to add up to 17.

…
The Trump administration's military operations against the Houthis began Saturday with a strike that hit "over 30 targets at multiple locations," Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, the joint staff's planning boss, told reporters Monday.

"These included terrorist training sites, unmanned aerial vehicle infrastructure, weapons manufacturing capabilities and weapon storage facilities," Grynkewich said, adding that the targets "also included a number of command-and-control centers, including a terrorist compound where we know several senior Houthi unmanned aerial vehicle experts were located."

Since Saturday, Grynkewich said strikes have continued; posts on the U.S. Central Command and Defense Department social media pages show that jets from the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman were flying as late as Thursday.

Grynkewich wouldn't say how many targets were hit on subsequent days, but several defense officials told Military.com that the number of targets was lower than the total reported Saturday. …”

The Last Houthi Attack Was Months Ago. But the US Military Has Now Launched an Open-Ended Campaign in Yemen. | Military.com

www.military.com www.military.com

Meanwhile, the Houthis have vowed to retaliate and to resume attacking shipping lanes …
 
Ramrouser said:
So this was worse than Afghanistan with people dying and literally falling out of the sky from airplanes?
Click to expand...
Much worse. Afghanistan was a military operation. Military operations are difficult to plan and often go sideways. The degree of difficulty is high.

This was a fucking group chat. This is the simplest thing in the world do get right. As you might have seen the video earlier on this thread, it's explainable to small children. Here's what you need to know to avoid this problem:

don't discuss military operations over unsecured channels. Unsecured for military purposes.

That's all. It's like that cartoon from Trump 1 with Merkel asking Trump, "what did I tell you about hiring Nazis?" and Trump says, "Don't" Then next slide: "and what did you do?" Trump: hired Nazis.

The difference here is orders of magnitude in scope. General rule of thumb: if there is an operational principle that a high schooler can easily understand and implement, then the fucking Secretary Of Defense better be able to do as well as the high schooler and if he can't, he shouldn't be the Secretary Of Defense.
 
Ramrouser said:
No doubt Pete shouldn't have been identifying the timing for the attacks but at least no information of individual sources, specific weaponry to be used and units involved in the attack. I've already said they should admit they erred and move on.
Click to expand...
Sure, he airballed the uncontested layup, but at least he didn't subsequently curse out the ref and get a tech. Nothing to see here.
 
CFordUNC said:
I am certain nothing of actual consequence will come of this, but it has definitely been oddly satisfying seeing the the MAGAts on skates trying their best to spin this egregious failure. The spin is so outlandishly absurd and discombobulated.
Click to expand...
You would think that after 9 years of spinning Trump and MAGA bs that they would be better at it. But here we are with the same weak ass lie, deny, deflect and defend spin that they always use.

Guess it must work exactly as intended on the cultist because they keep going back to it over and over.
 
The end game is that they keep spinning until the reality can't be denied. Think Iraq War in 2006.

The problem is we all suffer for their tomfoolery.
 
superrific said:
Much worse. Afghanistan was a military operation. Military operations are difficult to plan and often go sideways. The degree of difficulty is high.

This was a fucking group chat. This is the simplest thing in the world do get right. As you might have seen the video earlier on this thread, it's explainable to small children. Here's what you need to know to avoid this problem:

don't discuss military operations over unsecured channels. Unsecured for military purposes.

That's all. It's like that cartoon from Trump 1 with Merkel asking Trump, "what did I tell you about hiring Nazis?" and Trump says, "Don't" Then next slide: "and what did you do?" Trump: hired Nazis.

The difference here is orders of magnitude in scope. General rule of thumb: if there is an operational principle that a high schooler can easily understand and implement, then the fucking Secretary Of Defense better be able to do as well as the high schooler and if he can't, he shouldn't be the Secretary Of Defense.
Click to expand...

Trump caved to the Taliban, bringing f****g terrorists into Camp David! Disgraceful. The "deal" where Trump was paid left a skeleton crew in Afghanistan - a poison pill. Trump bent over for Putin and tried to aid him in disrupting NATO. Putin as a KGB agent wished to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. Could Obama also have done more than sanctions in response to the 2014 invasion and capture of Crimea and infiltration into the Donbas. Putin thought NATO and Zelenskyy were weak enough to make his move.

We all knew the Taliban would not abide by the agreement. One of my family members served in Afghanistan - the company that replaced them were ambushed and killed. So Ram can ram it where the sun doesn't shine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top