this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
666 points (99.4% liked)

Progressive Politics

4917 readers
283 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Trump continues to say that Iran wants to make a deal to end the war and that the U.S. has control over the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the president downplayed concerns about the conditions aboard the USS Lincoln. MS NOW Senior National Security Reporter David Rohde and New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker join Stephanie Ruhle with more details and analysis.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 125 points 5 days ago (4 children)

1. The proximate cause: Bahrain hub destroyed, logistics broken

Multiple outlets trace the Lincoln’s supply shortfalls to the Feb. 28 Iranian missile and drone attacks that “heavily damaged” Naval Support Activity Bahrain, a principal logistics hub for U.S. carrier operations in the Gulf, forcing an abrupt pivot to more distant ports such as Diego Garcia and stretching resupply lines . The New York Times and subsequent reporting state the damage to Bahrain directly contributed to shortages and longer deployments for carriers conducting operations related to the war with Iran .

2. Operational consequences: longer trips, Diego Garcia and exposure

The loss of the Bahrain hub forced the Pentagon to use Diego Garcia, farther from the Gulf, as an emergency logistics node; that longer transit, and the vulnerability of alternate ports to Iranian strikes, created measurable strain on sustainment cycles and contributed to the Lincoln approaching nine months at sea without a liberty port, increasing wear on people and materiel . Reporting links that logistical shift to additional Iranian targeting — for example, ballistic missiles aimed at Diego Garcia — and to the effort to keep continuous operations like the maritime blockade and airstrikes functioning .

3. Political overlay: accusations that Hegseth “hid” the damage

Television commentators and pundits framed the narrative as an intentional concealment by Pete Hegseth — the phrase that he “hid” the destruction appears on MS NOW and other clips — but those pieces present the allegation without producing internal memos or a paper trail proving intentional concealment [1]. The reporting available shows Hegseth and the Navy publicly pushing back, calling media descriptions “completely misrepresented,” and declining to confirm specific supply shortfall details in some interviews, which opponents interpreted as evasive .


TL;DR: Of course he did. The next base to supply them is 2,200 miles away. They fucked up super bad again.

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 57 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

As a sidenote: reading this really made me miss the Oxford comma

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Even more fun, this sentence is grammatically vague [I removed the end clause, because it’s irrelevant to this point and adds another comma]:

The reporting available shows Hegseth and the Navy publicly pushing back, calling media descriptions “completely misrepresented,” and declining to confirm specific supply shortfall details in some interviews

That could be an Oxford comma, but it’s probably not. I assume the “calling…misrepresented“ clause qualifies the first point and the second comma is because they’ve ended a quote.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 33 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Minutes away to a conservative pundit complain that the resupply base name is Hispanic instead of an Union general and Trump forcing everyone to change the name

[–] eurodyne@piefed.world 31 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Minutes away to a conservative pundit complain that the resupply base name is Hispanic instead of an ~~Union~~ Confederate general and Trump forcing everyone to change the name

FTFY

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

use Diego Garcia, farther from the Gulf, as an emergency logistics node

I'm legitimately surprised that Trump hasn't gotten around to ordering the British to rename that via a long nonsensical Truth Social rant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 75 points 5 days ago (4 children)

This is embarrassing for the Navy because the combat units weren't able to protect the base, because the Seabees weren't able to repair the base in a timely manner, and/or because the logistics units weren't able to re-route the supply lines effectively. Take your pick!

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 65 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Worse than embarrassing. Trump and his ilk have made it clear that they don't really care about the conditions on the Lincoln as long as those conditions don't become publicly known. With competent leadership there would be a contingency plan in place for this exact scenario, but instead we're stuck with a MAGA TV personality that should be working on a used car lot next to a junkyard.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Well yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the issue (and the embarrassment) extends well beyond the Lincoln. This debacle puts the effectiveness of the entire Navy itself into question.

I mean, for the past 75 years, THE thing that the US Navy was best at, that set it apart from and above any other organization in the world, was its amazing logistics. We had dedicated ice cream barges in WWII, for crying out loud! The fact that we're apparently unable to resupply ships for months because of some relatively minor regional war is a decline of the same magnitude as the one the Ukraine war revealed about Russia.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 21 points 5 days ago

I think y'all actually agree and are saying the same thing. Now kith

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 12 points 5 days ago

this is a reoccuring thing when I describe america. its like the way 80's russia was portrayed and he is making us like current russia. we will have our tank guys train with no tanks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 23 points 5 days ago

also trump doesnt want the war to stop, otherwise the news is going back to concentrating on domestic issues,ICE and epstein files

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 51 points 5 days ago (3 children)

So... "a few shepherds with basically sticks and stones" managed to fuck royally the whole US navy? The navy of the strongest military of the world? The navy that, apparently was able to destroy anything in its path?

I mean, they were saying months ago that Iran's military was utterly destroyed and they won the war... How did they go from "we're winning the war and Iran's military is gone" to "our sailors are eating boot soles"?

Your comment almost got me to rewatch Ossoff (sp?) asking Kegsbreath the same question over and over.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 32 points 5 days ago (3 children)

So, Hegseth will throw his own country to the wolves just to deflect from his inexperience and ignorance. trump must be so proud of his acolyte.

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I keep saying it but this is literal treason. In 19xx, any general or SECRATARY OF DEFENSE would absolutely be convicted immediately for putting american lives in danger to benefit your own ego. It'd be national news for weeks. Its fucking embarassing and dishonorable.

Id throw their tagline back at them, but theyve never believed in being "great" in the first place.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago

Conservatives are hypocrites held together by agreed upon bigotry.

That's it, it's not that complicated.

They never believed anything they said.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 days ago

Dictators want unqualified people in high positions, to ensure loyalty and control, as these individuals are less likely to challenge dictator's authority or policies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 17 points 5 days ago (4 children)

The fact that the main US base in the Persian Gulf was destroyed has been known for months.

Here's a story about it from June:

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-us-naval-base-bahrain-e87bbca3

I remember reading back then about how the navy was scrambling to evacuate the base because they couldn't stop the incoming missiles.

[–] ElDuderino@lemmus.org 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You had to either really read in between the lines or be following alternative news sources to understand that the Bahrain base was destroyed in March. Most people following mainstream news did not know how bad it was. Heck - most casual people are still like 'what war?'

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago

Not really, it was a major article in the WSJ, it was in the NY Times. the BBC. It was in the military's own news site Stars and Stripes.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people were unaware, but most people seem unaware of just about everything.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A fact that was and is still wildly under appreciated.

The loss of those bases is massive and likely a turning point in this mess.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (7 children)

I don't think it's that massive. It's embarrassing and shameful, but the US navy has plenty of other bases that can take up the slack.

It was really stupid to start a war with Iran without first moving all the key personnel out of that base and redeploying them outside Iran's reach. The navy had to know that once a shooting war started, a base that was just across the narrow part of the Gulf from Iran, only 200 km away, was going to be extremely vulnerable. It is a sign of the kind of military that Hegseth runs that they had to abandon and evacuate that base once missiles started hitting it.

But, there's no need for the USN to be commanded from a building that's only 200 km from Iran. They can manage that fleet from the nearby base in Naples, or from a US base.

And, of course, if Trump hadn't alienated all the US's former friends and allies, there might be plenty of places between the Persian Gulf and Naples that would be willing to help with resupplies. But, as it stands, the US doesn't really have any friends anymore.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 16 points 5 days ago

This reminds of Dune where Raban is forced to hide that the Fremen and Paul halted spice production to save his own ass at the cost of countless others.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 34 points 5 days ago

Was the damage done by drones or missiles?

Its tragically embarrassing either way, but even more so if drones because the whole fucking world knew Iran would be using drones to cause damage and the US ignored everything Ukraine learned and wanted to pass on.

[–] mrmisses@lemmy.world 40 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Did they destroy the entire base without killing anyone? What else are they hiding?

[–] protist@retrofed.com 23 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Don't need to destroy a base to make it inoperable, just need to damage a few important things like runways and control centers

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Blownup the port cranes and you're basically done. It's what the US and Saudis did in Yemen

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think this proves an assertion that I have made in the past: America excels at battles, but is unfit for war.

America used to have stamina, but the focus on ultra-tech and now "manhood" has robbed it of that important thing.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure America excels at battles. Seems like sucker punches is what they're best at.

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

To be fair, the best way to win a battle is to sucker punch.

[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but the US also wants everyone to like and respect and trust them.

You can't do both.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Also kinda hard to win when you have no plan after said sucker punch.

Vs small nations/groups that have no real ability to fight back.... eh kinda works (not in Afghanistan or Iraq though). For some reason I keep thinking about Black Adder goes forth and him talking about how his war experience vs the "Watutsi" was not applicable as they where armed only with fruit. This conflict is the states in the trenches trying to fight like their enemies have no strike abilities, and now all the us bases are gone they don't have the local logistics.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 15 points 5 days ago (3 children)

NOT supplying our Troops is how you SUPPORT the Troops!

-Republicans!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Waffelmeister@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago (16 children)

I always though the US-Military is almost allmighty. It's nice to see there are clear limitations to their power.

[–] fenpy@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They are allmighty.

In Hollywood movies!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Honestly, their K/D/A ratio is pretty shockingly bad, also they've quite a few times been feeding (trained Osama, to sick him on another country they didn't like, Osama came back to bite them in the ass. Gave support to a military Junta by a fascist military, that gov came back to bite them in the ass. Etc etc)

They just have an incredibly good propaganda arm, that makes them look more mighty than they are

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Is 2026 any different to the past? When Rumsfeld was in charge of the Iraq invasion soldiers jeered him because they were having to hack their vehicles with scrap metal to make them safe. His response was just belligerent.

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 days ago (5 children)

It doesn't matter how many times Republicans fuck the troops, the troops still vote for them.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago

Because basic training involves breaking the soldier psychologically into actually believing in God and country.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 10 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Every time I read reports like this, I fear amerikkkas are many times more intellectually challenged than Hegseth, because they haven't taken the Nazis down.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think I'm just about tired of bringing up leopards and faces every time the USS Lincoln comes up, so here's one last time:

Leopards eating faces moment.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And apparently this snake wants to run for president

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›