Here are Daniel Davis and Joe Kent talking about a war:

Oh Jupiter, have you ever heard anything so well-meaning but so absolutely absurd? Sh#tty consequence alert: There will be no settlement as long as Donald Trump is President. The US government will not be restraining the Israelis. What you have in the video is Daniel Davis and Joe Kent flogging a premise: war against Iran was a bad idea. Sure. It was. Reality about the war against Iran, as far as I can tell, is laid out in Aurelien's comment in Yves Smith's post on Naked Cap:

Whenever you come across what seems like a really insane political initiative, the question to ask is not “what is thus intended to accomplish?” but rather “what is this intended to avoid?” As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, most historical disasters have come about not because the plan was good but because the alternative was worse.

The option of declaring victory and leaving is not open, because it’s the Iranians who will decide when and if the war stops. That leaves only two options: a humiliating climbdown, or something, anything, that will keep the conflict going, buy time, divert attention from Iranian missile attacks and just conceivably string things out until the regime collapses, as the Mossad still thinks it will, apparently. Since the first is impossible, the second selects itself. Bear in mind that it could be stretched over several weeks, as forces arrive and assemble, a few daring small-scale raids are carried out and more threats and promises are made. It’s the choice between certain failure and probable failure. Anything that keeps the ball in the air will do.

So if you are pawing through YouTube looking for the truth about the war, the truth is that the US government is doing aimless-looking things to avoid public embarrassment (what they fear in giving in to Iran's demands) and to create a front, any front, because after all the President will need something to say at any particular moment in time when the cameras are on him. As consequentialists, they are in a world of hurt when the consequences are all bad ones. So if you were wondering what this "ground troops suicide mission" issue was about, there you go. Yves Smith's response to Aurelien that this non-strategy can only last so long is (and will be) of no consequence, because it is the Iranians who will decide when this will be over.

There is no persuading anyone about the war. The US' alibi is its fealty before Israel; the Israelis want more land, more land for me being the Zionist equivalent of more money for me; and the Iranians will no longer put up with US/ Israeli attempts to destroy their country.

Remember that diary about consequentialism and deontology?

The US is run by consequentialists. They are sh#tty consequentialists, which means that their idea of consequences is bad and is mostly going to bring down bad consequences upon everyone. Their idea of a principle is more money for me, which is a way of saying that they have no principles at all.

If you want an example of exceptionally sh#tty consequentialism that is not Trump, here's Gavin Newsom:

Aw, geez, Newsom says, I'm sorry I once pretended to have principles. Can I have some AIPAC money now?

The Iranian politicians, on the other hand, believe in something. You might not like what they believe, but they believe in it. They believe in something so much that they don't care what the immediate results are. They are deontologists, which means that they believe they have duties and obligations. These are determined by their religion, the Shia branch of Islam. They believe, apparently, that their duty is to provide one vengeance for all. I hope you caught the Iranian TV video before it was taken down by the censors. It persuasively lays out the case for the US as the Great Satan.

Ironically, if Aurelien is right, then the Iranian politicians, the deontologists in this matter, will decide consequences.

The American politicians, on the other hand, well, maybe when they are good ones they will suck up to consequences that might actually be good ones. Bernie Sanders likes sucking up to good consequences, Medicare for All for instance, from time to time. When Americans do this, when they promise good consequences, they are better-behaved than they are when they merely let their narcissism and hubris guide them to arriving at decisions. What you need, and what you're not getting, is a cut above Bernie Sanders: an American politician with a good deontology. Martin Luther King Jr. was probably an example of that. That's right, folks: the last American political figure with a good deontology was so exceptional that they gave him a holiday. And he wasn't even elected to anything!

At any rate, the point of having a deontology is that you think that doing a particular thing is your obligation regardless of the consequences. Deontologists might be killed for their beliefs, in the way in which the Iranian leadership was killed for its belief in the virtues or martyrdom. Remember, the caveat for being a deontologist is to carry out one's perceived duty no matter the consequences. But on that score the American politicians have failed, fail today, and will continue to fail in the future, because American politicians -- barring some sort of miracle -- do not believe in anything but what they think are the consequences of their actions. It is no coincidence in that regard that the quintessential American philosophy is pragmatism, which is to say, sucking up to perceived consequences.

Okay? Okay.