Isaac Saul (18:12)
Alright, that's it for what the left and right are saying, which brings me to my take. Taken altogether, the opinion pages of news outlets across the political spectrum are telling the story of this war pretty well. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote the war and yes, despite the lack of congressional authority, if we're deploying carrier groups and exchanging fire for a full week, then you can call it a war. It has been remarkably successful so far. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his top generals have been killed. The regime that has allied itself with Russia and China and chanted Death to America for years is getting punched in the mouth, and the US has suffered relatively few casualties. As PJ Media's David Manny wrote, Iran's missile stores are being rapidly depleted. And despite what you may have been led to believe by critics in the media like Isaac and like me, the latest polling suggests between 41% and 50% of Americans approve of Operation Epic Theory, a rating higher than what's enjoyed by most federal departments. And yet, even as the military takes out Iranian assets, the administration's goals have been mercurial at best. As recent. As Matthew Petty wrote, the United States says it's going into Iran to destroy a nuclear weapon system that was already destroyed, but also to quickly decapitate a despotic regime which has already been recapit which has already been recapitated, but also to ensure the freedom of the Iranian people, something the military cannot deliver through bombs alone. Depending on when and whom you ask, you get different answers. Already six service members stationed in Kuwait have died, and as Vox's Eric Levitz wrote, the war is going to incur additional costs on top of Iranian and American lives. The price of gasoline in the US Is rising and US Allies in the region are being hit. Furthermore, as the American prospects Ryan Cooper wrote, the war costs actual doll to wage too. By some estimates, the first 24 hours cost $779 million. And as the dispatch as Jonathan Rui opined, the worst is yet to come. You can expect Iran to broaden the fight regionally in an effort to expend US And Israeli weaponry and for the trillion dollar US Military to ask for even more money. The Atlantic's Adam Sor rightly noted that only Congress has the power to declare war, not the president. But as CNN's Zachary Wolf reminded us, presidents have been routinely waging military actions for decades without congressional oversight. And as National Review's John Yoo affirmed, members of Congress have been all too willing to allow the president to do their jobs for them. Taken together, these writers weave a convincing narrative on a complicated issue. The US Military appears to be accomplishing its goals with breathtaking efficiency. But its goals are not clearly defined to the public, and its efforts are quite costly, perhaps even illegal. However, the narrative, as I told it, feels uncomfortably incomplete. Above, I name dropped eight different people. Those eight people are intelligent and represent views from across the political spectrum, all with sincere conviction and belief they came to honestly. Yet as far as I can tell, none of them have served any time in the US Military. Neither have I. Neither has anybody on Tango staff. And that's not a poor sample either. While veterans and service members comprise roughly 6% of the general population, only 2% of media workers are military veterans. What's more, these views only represent one side of the conflict. Iran is an enormous and diverse country of 93 million people. Some of them cheered in the streets when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed, while others mourned. Some are eager to start a new chapter, others are trepidatious, and others still are terrified. And that is only a part of the spectrum of reactions coming from the residents of a country where this war is actually being waged very far from American shores, I can't help but feel deeply unsettled by how the opinions that are shaping public sentiment on this war are so far removed from those tasked with carrying it out, or for that matter, the Iranian civilians on the receiving end of our firepower. It just seems strange to me that I can read for hours on end about a war the United States military is involved in and not come away with any real understanding of how the entire thing is impacting the people who actually are waging it. So I have to ask, what do those who have actually served in the armed forces thing among veterans, the current war brings on mixed emotions. A recent Fox News poll showed that 59% of veterans support the war in Iran, a number very similar to the group's job approval of President Trump. However, only 37% of veterans said Trump's actions in Iran have made the country Safer, compared to 44% who said they have made the US less safe. It's fair to say that most veterans are optimistic about the prospect of confronting the region's largest sponsor of terror head on, but some are also deeply concerned about doing so without a plan and without congressional oversight. Alex Plitces, a former army staff sergeant who deployed to Iraq in 2008, highlighted the risk of a drawn out conflict while talking to Task and Purpose, an online publication for the military community. Plitzis said, even if there was a noble mission to seek justice for 911 in Afghanistan, the protracted conflict afterwards with mission creep or the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the subsequent loss of lives and destruction has caused a lot of moral injury and PTSD among the veterans community, plitzis went on to say. But at the same time, Iran again has been a party to this conflict over the last 25 years, albeit in the background providing lethal aid and support to a number of non state actors who are engaged in fighting against these United States and responsible for hundreds of U.S. deaths. Some veterans also seem to hold suspicion about the failure to produce a declaration of war from Congress or even so much as an authorization for use of military force, leading to deep seated fears that another forever war could be on the horizon. If force is used, it must be tied to a strategy that protects American service members, advances our core national interests and avoids another open ended conflict, said John Vick, executive director of the conservative veterans group Concerned Veterans for America. Vic continued, it is essential the elected leaders in Washington debate and vote on these actions in line with the Constitution as members of the media. We get to ask pointed questions about military actions. It's our job to ask. But in this era, we're afforded an almost incomprehensible luxury to work unimpeded by the effects of those actions. We take for granted that our country can just decide to drop bombs on another country without an industrial overhaul to produce those bombs. A draft to bring more people into the armed services, or call to the populace to tighten our belts and pitch in. That's a societal anomaly over the broad sweep of history. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. central Command, gave a summary two days ago on Operation Epic Fury in Iran. I highly Recommend watching his 5 minute update, which is informative and professional. According to Admiral Cooper, at the time that he gave his announcement, 17 Iranian ships had been destroyed. That number may be now over 20, including every Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf. Cooper says that a total of 50,000 troops are supporting the effort. And it bears repeating. Six service members have already died in Kuwait. 50,000 troops, six dead. By way of comparison, 73,000 U.S. troops stormed the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944. 2,501 were killed on that day, which drew the eyes of the world to Northern France. Today, the US military can deploy a force similar in size, and most of the country will barely flinch. I feel deeply conflicted about this dynamic. On the one hand, we civilians are incredibly blessed to be shielded from the bloody side of geopolitics thanks to the service of our military personnel. That speaks to the decades of development and excellence of our armed forces, and we should be extremely grateful for that. But on the other hand, I think it's far too easy to feel disconnected from that service. And that disconnect scares me. What decisions will our government make when most of the country is so well insulated from the impacts of those choices? As this war continues, it will be tempting to think of its costs in terms of economic disruption, oil prices and approval ratings. In reality, half the world away, a country with a population of 93 million people will have its fate impacted by how we deploy a standing army of roughly 1.3 million people. The most immediate costs will be paid by hundreds of millions of people in the Middle east, and they will be felt and witnessed by an even smaller contingent of several thousand uniformed personnel. I worry that as a voting public, we're trying to understand a war that we can't really feel. I worry that we can only interpret major events through a partisan lens and will only react to matters of life and death and global stability as if we're watching characters in a TV show. And more than anything, I worry that the vast majority of the country that's composed of civilians would not be able to appreciate the actual on the ground costs being paid in blood and lives. We'll be right back after this quick break.
