Post #4834303 · Elektrine

2026-09-24 17:03 UTC

So the US suffering defeat at the hands of another state is not, by itself, intrinsically good. We, the subaltern, don’t benefit from an adversary growing stronger at the expense of the US if that adversary is also malign and repressive. The people of Iran and the Gulf monarchies or Palestine are not any better off for the weakening of US power in the Middle East at the hands of the Iranian state. Imagine if this were a case of Elon Musk’s firms competing with Mark Zuckerberg’s firms and capturing market share and revenue from Zuckerberg. Would any of us be better or worse off for it?

Replies (1)

@HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social 2026-09-24 17:03

All of that said, the US is very obviously becoming dramatically weaker, very quickly, and only some of that is due to adversary action. The US has expended critical munitions and lost aircraft it cannot easily replace. It has pushed its most important naval vessels to the breaking point, taking them out of service for lengthy periods of time. It has lost bases in the Middle East but, more importantly, lost credibility with other states and corroded alliances on which the US relies for a wide array of powers: basing, overflight, logistics, intelligence sharing, and partner forces to augment its own. It has spent enormous sums of money not just on the war, but all sorts of boondoggles that will never come to fruition, like the “Trump-class battleship.” In its quest for ideological purity, it has purged its ranks of competent officers and shuttered components intended to think through problems like “how to win wars.”

Open ##4834300