Winston Churchill said that “wars are not won by evacuations” — and sometimes, he might have added, they are simply embarrassing. 

The United States hastily flew its B-1 bombers out of the UK’s Fairford air base last week for fear of a potential Iranian drone attack.

It was the latest in a series of successful Iranian operations aimed at crimping US bases, this time more than 2,000 miles away from Iran itself. 

President Donald Trump has found — by opening a channel to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and blockading Iran — a strategy to pressure Iran that may yet produce a favorable outcome to the war.

But the conflict has exposed glaring US military deficiencies, with our inability to protect our bases in the region and elsewhere high on the list. 

Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao has said the Iranians “blew the hell out of Bahrain,” referring to the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in the tiny Gulf kingdom.

They’ve also hit US facilities in Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

The vast majority of US casualties in the ongoing war have resulted from attacks on our bases. 

It once seemed that having so many bases in proximity to Iran was useful to containing the Islamic Republic — but when Tehran began firing on these facilities, it became clear that their locations made them vulnerable targets. 

Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, where buildings and radar domes got hit, is just over 60 miles away from the Iranian border. 

A number of bases have been fully or partly evacuated, and US operations have felt the effects.

One reason that there was so much strain on the USS Abraham Lincoln during its lengthy deployment is that Bahrain was no longer available as a supply hub.

The Navy had to rely on facilities in Diego Garcia and Singapore instead, creating a supply chain thousands of miles long. 

The Iranian missile and drone threat to our bases was foreseeable, and yet we didn’t do enough to protect them.

One option now is a broad pullback of our presence in the region, but so long as hydrocarbons power the modern economy, this is a non-starter.

The Gulf states would have an incentive to look elsewhere for strategic partners, most worryingly to Russia or China, and might conclude that they should do more to accommodate an Iran that would have effectively chased us from the Persian Gulf.

The answer to the threat to the bases is the same thing that created the threat in the first place — innovation. 

We’ve long had bases in the Gulf, including a naval command headquarters in Bahrain since 1948, but the purpose and the nature of the US presence has changed over time.

As Kristian Alexander writes in an analysis for the Stimson Center, during the Cold War we didn’t have a large land presence at our Gulf bases — but after Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, that changed. 

Today, the question is how to reconfigure our presence once again to make it more defensible and sustainable.

“US bases,” Alexander writes, “remain indispensable for intelligence collection, command and control, maritime security, air and missile defense, logistics and long-range power projection.”

One option is to locate more facilities in Israel.

Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations points out that the Jewish state is much further away — more than 1,000 miles from Iran — and would impose fewer restrictions on our access and overflight rights. 

But we still require bases in the Gulf.  

We’re going to need to disperse them, harden them (including with more underground elements) and build in more redundancy.

Their air defenses need to be more robust and layered, and less dependent on expensive missiles that are in short supply.

The Iran war was supposed to represent a short, sharp defanging of the Iranian regime.

Instead, it has dragged on.

Now it’s serving as a lesson in some key shortcomings of US military power that must be addressed — lest they bite us again in a conflict with a much more powerful adversary. 

X: @RichLowry