Who knew Benjamin Franklin was prescient some 270 years ago about modern day warfare?
In his 1758 edition of Poor Richard’s Almanac, Franklin included the following ditty:
“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For the want of a horse the rider was lost,
For the want of a rider the battle was lost,
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”
The limerick has been ascribed to the fate of King Richard III of England. In August 1485 he lost the Battle of Bosworth Field, and his life, when his horse stumbled and threw him from the saddle because a horsehoe had only three, not four, nails keeping it in place. Richard’s death marked the end of the 331-year reign of the Plantagenet dynasty. The victorious Tudors assumed the royal title.
It’s the little things that can matter as much, if not more, than the big things when analyzing why a plan or a battle might go awry.
To wit—The New York Times carried an article on the precision ball screw, a seemingly prosaic screw that is key to the successful operation of Patriot missiles, aircraft and humanoid robots (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/26/business/ball-screws-military-production.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share).
The thrust of the article is that there is a dire need for more precision ball screws than are currently being produced, a condition compounded by our exhaustive use of military hardware during the war with Iran. Replacing expended equipment will take years, leaving America vulnerable for completion of the current conflict and initiation of future actions.
It’s another example, a la the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran or attacks by Houthis along the Red Sea, thus choking off the free-flow of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, of Trump-Hegseth being blindsided by events they did not anticipate or appreciate before embarking on their war with Iran.
Iran and its proxies cannot claim they vanquished America and Israel. But they could justifiably claim victory if, after negotiations, they survive intact, more in control than before of two waterways vital to the world economy, and still in possession of enriched nuclear material.
Updating The McConnell Rule: With fingers crossed that Democrats will seize majority control of the Senate in January after results of next month’s midterm elections are certified, the future composition of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts hangs in the balance.
If Democrats prevail they will no doubt invoke the McConnell rule to deny Donald Trump any possibility to have nominees to any federal court brought before the Senate for confirmation. It will be payback for McConnell’s reluctance to have the Senate consider Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination by Barack Obama to succeed Antonin Scalia during the last year of his presidency.
To be sure Trump would still have not one but two years in office. However, Democrats would be foolish to cede him the power to pack the courts with more conservative decision makers during those last two years.
To circumvent Democratic restraints Trump might pressure Justices Alito and Thomas to retire from the Supreme Court in time for him to nominate successors, pushing them through the way he secured Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s seat on the court in the waning days of his first term while Republicans still controlled the Senate. Trump would have from early November to early January to effect his judicial onslaught.
The bottom line is politics will play an even greater role, at least on the surface, for all federal court nominations after November 3.
