Military operations are intended to support national strategic purposes. In the case of Epic Fury, the administration has not communicated clearly to the nation what that purpose is. In fact, since the start several purposes have been proffered, resulting in confusion as to why the nation is attacking Iran. An argument can be made that Epic Fury is an operation in search of a strategy.
The briefings provided so far have only reinforced what is already knew: the US military is well armed, well trained and manned by dedicated professional men and women. Videos are shown of buildings and ships being destroyed and, except for the tragic deaths of 7 service members, no harm coming to this very powerful US military force. What has not been explained is how the operation is progressing toward the strategic objective, whatever it is, making this writer think that objective is either not well defined or not well understood at the highest levels of government. Even considering operational security concerns, the strategic objective can still be communicated in broad terms allowing both the Executive and Legislative branches to stay on message. That is not the case. If the strategic objective cannot be articulated to the public one wonders if the administration can define victory or even a desired endpoint. Who would hire a contractor to build their home without providing blueprints or plans?
There is a growing and nagging possibility that the administration is becoming increasing susceptible to so called ‘victory disease.’ That’s a condition resulting from continuous military wins to the point that victory is assumed no matter the circumstances. Think in terms of Napolean in Russia or the Japanese at the Battle of Midway. Both had long strings of victories until they lost in historic fashion.
The administration needs the support of the governed. It currently does not have it. Oil is now over $100 a barrel. That will ripple through the entire economy. The administration must communicate a coherent and well-defined strategic goal so that the populace can understand the reason for the sacrifices they will be making. What they are currently receiving is a mishmash of messages and a Secretary of Defense sounding like a carnival barker.
If you don’t know where you’re going any road will do.
The government needs the “consent” of the people being governed, and where did the people consent for Congress in Amendment 14 to create for the first time a federal citizenship and impose it on everybody born in one of the States of the Union?
Remember that governments are instituted among men to secure to them their unalienable Creator-given natural rights, and just governments only derive their just powers from the consent of the governed people. Consent of the people to this new “federal citizenship” is either presumed by the government, or consent of the governed is no longer required.
Tom, you wrote, “The administration needs the ‘support‘ of the governed.”
Actually, the Founders declared that governments are instituted among men to secure to the people their Creator-given natural rights, and the republican form of government that We the People originally ordained and established did not give Congress the JUST power to force the people to adopt a Constitutional Amendment that would legally impose a new 14th Amendment federal citizenship on the people without their collective consent.
The original republican form of government appears to have ended when Congress, using Amendment 14, imposed federal citizenship on all persons born in the States of the Union without their voluntary collective consent.
Since the original social compact or contract did not authorize this new federal government citizenship, where is there any evidence that We the People collectively consented to Congress having the just power to create this new federal citizenship created by the 14th Amendment that was questionably passed under duress, coercion, and military force?
Yet no legal or political mechanism exists today for individuals to rebut the presumption that We the People voluntarily consented to Congress having the just power to use coercion and military force to compel the southern states to rewrite their State Constitutions, and ratify Amendment 14 before being seated in Congress.
The reason this issue of Amendment 14 lacking the collective consent of the people is largely due to historical amnesia. Generations have not been taught about the coercive conditions that led to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since 2026 is the 250th Anniversary of the founding of the United States of America, perhaps we, the people, today ought to take another look at how Congress forced the States to ratify Amendment 14, which, for the FIRST time made all the people born in the States of the Union federal citizens, and allowed the federal government to protect these new federal citizens a new class of civil rights secured to these new federal citizens by the 14th Amendment, and by various acts of Congress (e.g., Civil Rights Acts) made in pursuance thereof.
Where did we, the people, collectively consent to Congress having the JUST POWER to make this radical change in the citizenship of the American people? The consent of the people to Amendment 14 federal citizenship is either presumed, or consent is no longer required.
.
Tom, your article is a masterclass in clarity and courage. You cut through the fog of vague messaging with precision, grounding your critique in both experience and principle. Your voice, shaped by service and community, reminds me why strategic honesty matters. Not just for policy, but for the people living with its consequences. Thank you for speaking truth with such grace and grit. Thank you for taking the time and writing this.