A war in Iraq lasted 8 years so logically the war in Iran will be over in a month. It's like Dick Cheney has an account here.
Trump has been giving the Saudis weapons to murder women and children in Yemen for years now. In fact none of us know what is retaliation for what at this point. You guys jump in mid-game and create all the stories you want about what's really happening. Is Trump a bad ass for killing all those Yemenis too? Perhaps when Trump is killing women and children in Yemen it's a complex geopolitical issue but when he assassinates some general in Iraq it's as simple as hell yeah, go America.
Dilly Dilly, I say. We tried regime change in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I think there was a lesson learned there. Assuming we the goal is not to occupy, yeah a month to defeat their army. Give or take a few skirmishes. Do you have a timeline in mind or are you of the opinion we must occupy and have a regime change?
Now to be fair, nobody called you a piece is **** or attacked you for your point of view. They posed a loaded question, sure. But considering the insults hurled at anyone who opposes the left’s view, this reaction is a bit overly sensitive. Hell, in this thread alone I’ve been called ‘under educated’...or st...st..stupid’. (Thanks Comet...no offense taken). Opposing views can be discussed without insulting or name calling. And to that point, I don’t mean to single you out. It’s a pattern across the D&D. But hey it’s y'all's world here. I’m just visiting.
This is very dangerous and frankly ignorant thinking. Iran's population and land area is much larger than Iraq. Iran is also mountainous whereas much of Iraq is swampland or flat open desert. Further if your idea is victory is just removing the government what takes its place? Just look at Iraq and what has happened once Saddam fell. Iran could become several times the problem that Afghanistan was as a failed state breeding terrorism and insurgency. Let's not forget also that Iran has known nuclear capabilities. What happens to that material if the state collapses?
The amount of shortsighted thinking here is the type of dangerous thinking that has gotten us here. When Trump abandoned the agreement with Iran he said they would come back to the table and make a better deal. Instead they ramped up attacks against US interests. Over the past two years since the agreement was abandoned we've seen a pattern of continual expectation that Iran will back down and them not. Iran isn't in great shape economically or internally but rather than that being a sign that they will capitulate and back down there is the other possibility that they will instead decide that they have nothing to lose. That the US cannot be trusted and regime change is the only goal the US has. In that case there is no impetus for them to back down. Much of the rhetoric here sounds eerily like the rhetoric before the invasion of Iraq, "Saddam is a bad guy that has killed Americans and threatens US interest," "an all out war with Iraq will be over quickly" "Things will be much better in the Middle East after Saddam is removed" Etc... Apparently we haven't learned any of those lessons.
Defeating Iran's military would come in short order and be tactically easier than Iraq when they knew we were only coming from Kuwait. The fact that we can attack them from 3 sides because our troops can come from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf would mean they can't protect their flanks at all. The problem is Iran has a network of terrorists like tentacles all over the globe and occupying Iran isn't really an option because of the forces it would require. The insurgency would be a b****. If you get into a real shooting war you take out their ability to make conventional war and try and cut a deal like after Gulf War I. Don't roll tanks into Tehran....
The **** do you think happened in Iraq? Why do you think the insurgency was so entrenched, ISIS formed and these militias grew in prominence? What you want is akin to throwing a stick of dynamite into a person's window, kicking in the front door, killing their children and taking a crap on the couch that they hate. The fact that you don't understand why they wouldn't be grateful for giving them the chance to buy a new couch shows how short and callous your geopolitical attention span is. Here's a site where you can sign up for the Army: https://www.goarmy.com/ Maybe you'll be greeted as a liberator.
Little update - Apparently the people who stormed the embassy were all pretty clearly members of Kata'ib Hezbollah, reported by many neutral third parties. Popular Front - Episode 64 - US Embassy Siege In Baghdad
Iran isn't Iraq. Iran is much larger and topography is different and favors defensive and guerrilla battles like Afghanistan did. While we have an overwhelming technological advantage Iran has a very strong geographic advantage. They are also not likely to do what Saddam did and try to engage US forces out in the open on open plains. Just because we can attack from three sides doesn't mean we have the resources to do it. If we are to commit to a three sided attack we would need to launch from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq might vote this week for us to get out and we haven't been able to pacify Afghanistan. This is the key problem. How do you decide you've won against Iran? Or as you put it what would be the standard of taking out their ability to make conventional war? Iran's MO hasn't been invading it's neighbors but fighting defensive wars and then working through regional Shia extremist groups. Just taking out Iran's official military might not actually be as crippling to Iran as people think. Further if the regime's thinking is that the US can't be trusted and is only interested in regime change they would have little reason to want to cut a deal. Especially considering we pulled out unilaterally of the last deal we cut with Iran.
You could say Iran hasn't wanted a real war but has skated as close to the line as possible. Likewise, the US has tried to skate as close to the line as possible, waging an economic war against them while trying to stay away from a military one. For Iran to de-escalate now would be to capitulate to the US' continued economic war. I have a hard time believing that's going to happen. Iran has to be belligerent to make our economic war as costly for us as possible. I worry about two areas in particular for a response. The first is Iraq; if they can throw that country back into disarray it creates a problem for the US. The second is jihadi terrorism. They can probably get some tube bombings going, some French truck attacks, some American mass shootings. We will probably know in a general sense that the uptick in terrorism is a reaction to our Iranian policy, but we won't have a demonstrable link back to Iran to justify to the international community that a rocket attack on Tehran is warranted by a mass shooting in LA. I suppose I also worry about the Iraqi response to US attacks on their soil. Do they cling more to the US because they are now worried about becoming the locus of another proxy fight and they want the bigger ally? Or do they tell us to leave and hope the fight moves geographically? On the partisanship of this argument, I don't really blame Trumpers for supporting this attack even though I fear what will come as a result of it. You can't know how it'll play out, and there's lot of information you're not privy to. Regular citizens are in no good place to second guess the strategy, so you really have to go with who you trust. If Obama had done it, I'd have trusted that he took advice, considered all the implications and risks and tried to make the best possible decision. I'd wait until it failed so I can criticize in hindsight. So, I'm not surprised that a Trumper would do likewise. At the same time, I have no trust in Trump. I don't think he approaches these issues in a structured way or considers all angles or takes advice. I also already didn't agree with his policy goals re Iran that precipitated this attack, so obviously wouldn't be keen on escalation of an already bad strategy. But no need and no benefit to argue with people who support the assassination. I'll criticize later with the benefit of hindsight. Right now, I'll just worry.
Your response was so out of context with what I said, or at least tried to say, I don't know how to respond. The point is, occupation and regime change should not be the goal, IMO. If there becomes a war or proxy skirmishes, strike and pull back. We have that capability. Where did you get that I'm claiming someone is grateful for anything? I can't make sense of your response. It's incoherent.
I'll clarify: My idea of victory would be to deplete their military without boots on the ground unless it's a defensive stance. The worry about Iran becoming a failed state subject to terrorism and insurgency.....HELLO!! Their government is based on this doctrine. Strike with appropriate response and limit boots on the ground.
lol...It's pretty ****ing stable now eh? We didn't pick this fight. Iran has been at it for decades through proxy. Why lie down and take it? That's called enabling. That's cool in your book? I mean really....News Flash: The Middle East is unstable. Was the day before yesterday and will be tomorrow and probably so 50 years from now.
Again though how do you know you've won especially if you already consider Iran a failed state that uses terrorism and insurgency? How is depleting Iran's conventional forces going to address their ability to wage asymmetric warfare based upon terrorism and insurgency? What is an appropriate response? These are the type of questions that should be thought out and it's exactly that we didn't think through these questions when we invaded Iraq why we are still there 15 years later, in the mess that we continue to be in and having lost more than 4,000 US troops in that effort.
