[Goose]

War is politics by another means. Of course strategy and politics can't be separated.

IMO true, but Clausewitz was of course referring to international relations, not domestic ones. The Terry rule applies only to the latter, not the former as I understand it. Moderators feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The reason we haven't sent F16s and ATACMS is political of course. The administration cannot unilaterally do things, what aid is provided is bounded by what has been appropriated from Congress. If we send one F16 that's a lot of artillery ammo, air defense missiles, IFVs we are not sending.

I don't at all agree. Right now it is impossible to send any military aid at all to Ukraine because Congress has not approved it. Domestic political considerations play a primary role. However, ignoring that elephant, in the past that was not the case. The administration had several potentially good reasons to not supply ATACMS. 

First and foremost, IMO the Army was dead set against it because their supply of ATACMS isn't near as large as they wish it were and the PrSM was not yet being delivered at all. It is now arriving, but in minuscule quantities. It is also unclear if it works. Second, the administration was/is concerned Ukraine would use such a missile to attack Russia and Russia would escalate this war significantly, i.e. use tactical nuclear weapons. This is an evaluation of Russian strategic doctrine. I am glad I am not the one that has to do that. Lastly, the fact Biden said unequivocally we would not do that means that if we do so, Russia may decide we are "dangerously unreliable" and use that as a reason to escalate the war. All of these reasons are potentially valid and are not in any way, as near as I can tell, political. The administration decided the sh** to worth ratio was not favorable. I actually don't agree, but it is not my call.

The F-16s are in a similar condition. The administration undoubtedly considers the US supplying them to be a bridge too far. Remember, the US was absolutely unwilling to supply any modern tanks until the UK and (subsequently) Germany did. Poland has already been sending their older Russian models. The US is operating with an (over?) abundance of caution. The administration really, really doesn't want to start a US vs Russia war. That is just too dangerous.

When the other NATO countries actually start delivering their F-16s, will this reason go away (as it apparently did with Abrams)? If it does, are F-16s a "zero sum" game with other weapons systems? It is unclear to me this is necessarily the case. The US has many F-16s that are going to the boneyard at best. The actual cost is nowhere near the "book value" of the "asset". However, once it is declared "surplus", it has to be sent to the boneyard or "de-militarized", which in this case probably means destroyed. Giving it to an ally is actually cheaper than either.

So when Goose has opined about what the administration should do it's impossible to discuss why that is not being done without an examination of the underlying politics.

In some cases you are correct. The reasons we aren't doing something may be domestic politics. In many cases, as I think I have demonstrated above, it is not the case. In the past I thought it "OK" to point out the consequences of not executing the action and urging greater effort to make it possible :-).  I am not going to do the latter anymore as it gets too close to domestic politics.

I would like Ukraine to have squadrons of F16s and hundreds of ATACMS. The reason they don't is mostly political.

A above, I disagree.

 In a sense it is strategic too, but strategic in the way that it would be really bad strategy to give Ukraine a few F16s instead of lots of artillery ammo and air defense missiles.

Why is it of necessity a "zero sum" game? It may be, but it is unclear to me why that is the case.

[Goose]

War is politics by another means. Of course strategy and politics can't be separated.

IMO true, but Clausewitz was of course referring to international relations, not domestic ones. The Terry rule applies only to the latter, not the former as I understand it. Moderators feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The reason we haven't sent F16s and ATACMS is political of course. The administration cannot unilaterally do things, what aid is provided is bounded by what has been appropriated from Congress. If we send one F16 that's a lot of artillery ammo, air defense missiles, IFVs we are not sending.

I don't at all agree. Right now it is impossible to send any military aid at all to Ukraine because Congress has not approved it. Domestic political considerations play a primary role. However, ignoring that elephant, in the past that was not the case. The administration had several potentially good reasons to not supply ATACMS. 

First and foremost, IMO the Army was dead set against it because their supply of ATACMS isn't near as large as they wish it were and the PrSM was not yet being delivered at all. It is now arriving, but in minuscule quantities. It is also unclear if it works. Second, the administration was/is concerned Ukraine would use such a missile to attack Russia and Russia would escalate this war significantly, i.e. use tactical nuclear weapons. This is an evaluation of Russian strategic doctrine. I am glad I am not the one that has to do that. Lastly, the fact Biden said unequivocally we would not do that means that if we do so, Russia may decide we are "dangerously unreliable" and use that as a reason to escalate the war. All of these reasons are potentially valid and are not in any way, as near as I can tell, political. The administration decided the sh** to worth ratio was not favorable. I actually don't agree, but it is not my call.

The F-16s are in a similar condition. The administration undoubtedly considers the US supplying them to be a bridge too far. Remember, the US was absolutely unwilling to supply any modern tanks until the UK and (subsequently) Germany did. Poland has already been sending their older Russian models. The US is operating with an (over?) abundance of caution. The administration really, really doesn't want to start a US vs Russia war. That is just too dangerous.

When the other NATO countries actually start delivering their F-16s, will this reason go away (as it apparently did with Abrams)? If it does, are F-16s a "zero sum" game with other weapons systems? It is unclear to me this is necessarily the case. The US has many F-16s that are going to the boneyard at best. The actual cost is nowhere near the "book value" of the "asset". However, once it is declared "surplus", it has to be sent to the boneyard or "de-militarized", which in this case probably means destroyed. Giving it to an ally is actually cheaper than either.

So when Goose has opined about what the administration should do it's impossible to discuss why that is not being done without an examination of the underlying politics.

In some cases you are correct. The reasons we aren't doing something may be domestic politics. In many cases, as I think I have demonstrated above, it is not the case. In the past I thought it "OK" to point out the consequences of not executing the action and urging greater effort to make it possible :-).  I am not going to do the latter anymore as it gets too close to domestic politics.

I would like Ukraine to have squadrons of F16s and hundreds of ATACMS. The reason they don't is mostly political.

A above, I disagree.

 In a sense it is strategic too, but strategic in the way that it would be really bad strategy to give Ukraine a few F16s instead of lots of artillery ammo and air defense missiles.

Why is it of necessity a "zero sum" game? It may be, but it is unclear to me why that is the case.