You can do enough damage through the air to make their military so weak that they are irrelevant.....IMO. There's no reason take city by city. I would just attack their ability to wage war. Yes, they'll try to rebuild. Yes, there will be proxy skirmishes. Yes, there will be terrorism. What would Saddam's Iraq look like if we stopped after a month? Would we be shaking in our boots? Hell no. At that time their army was considered to be stronger than Iran's. Here's a question for you @Ottomaton: What does winning mean to you? How far do you have to go to consider it a victory? I guess my idea of a win is not a traditional win where one surrenders. It's basically hit hard, pull back, defend where you need to. Hit again when needed. I'm not interested in winning the heart and minds. They have generations of hate for America embedded into their way of life. If they want war, I don't care how they feel about America. Pussyfooting around has just enabled their behavior.
Applauding escalating attacks on the US from Iran with no retaliation is foolish and shortsighted. We saw how that works out pretty much throughout human history, the recent past all through the distant path. The one who fails to act loses. Hate to break this newsflash: Tensions between Iran and the USA were already escalated. The question then was what to do about it. Please do cite all the examples where allowing transgressions to proceed without retaliation was successful.
Will have to see how long the troops stay there, although the amount is still low. For that matter, we will have to wait and see what the Iranian military response is, if any. Again, I think the liklihood of them conducting attacks against Americans is lower today than it was last week. The liklihood of other intervention through their proxies is likely higher, although I suspect they'll be careful about doing anything that can be tied directly back to them. Yes, taking out a high ranking general is a big step. Big steps were apparently needed here. We had warned Iran repeatedly that there would be consequences, but they, and directly he himself, not only continued to ignore them but they actually escalated on their end. I think the line from Unforgiven might be appropriate here: "He should have armed himself if he's gonna decorate his saloon with my friend." it's one thing to conduct terroristic attacks, heck, any type of attacks, against an adversary. It's another to do whilst traveling in said areas of conflict, basically parading around your apparent immunity from retaliation. ie, this attack would be considerably different had it been conducted in Iran. But it wasn't. It took place in the very state he was conducting operations. Hard to say this wasn't then simply a casualty of war. We aren't getting anywhere asking where the line is regarding his past acts against us. But...where do you stand given the implication that he was planning future, escalating, attacks against us? Should we not take action to prevent those? Harsh words and warning had gone unheeded. So apparently had targeted attacks against his militias. So, what then would be a response you would think would be both effective and appropriate? (real question).
My apologies...I recall seeing a post, I thought was his, talking about a multi sided offensive from three fronts. Can't find it now. Still not agreeing completely with him. Any 'war' we have with Iran would indeed be surgical strikes, but I don't think destroying their military would be the objective. Destroying key infrastructure would. We could do that in a day if we wanted...as the main targets would likely be their refineries. We could similarly take out key naval facilities/ships, and, if we wanted, probably airfields. I think Iran is well aware of this, and doesn't want to lose their refineries. So, they'll be careful what actions they take. So, even that step is highly unlikely...it's mainly important for them to know that threat is out there, and its real.
I'm trying not to be an @ass about this, though that is my natural inclination. If I get too prickly let me apologize in advance. The videos I posted detail some of the problems. People overestimate by a large degree the power of air strikes. This is in large part an effect of war in wide open Iraqi deserts with concentrated population centers around the water. Iran has about 4.5x the population of Iraq and isnt wide open desert. There are tons of mountains and populations are spread out over much wider swaths of the country. Iran is 3.77x as large as Iraq by square milage, and even that is extremely deceptive because like 2/3 of Iraq is unusable desert with nothing but Bedouin. It is hard to hide things in Iraq. It is easy in Iran. Most people are generally familiar with why we dont want to invade North Korea? It is because they have thousands of artillery pieces hidden in the mountains pointing at Seoul and we are incapable of locating and destroying them from the air without boots on the ground? That is most of Iran. Another imprecise but relevant example would be the Ho Chi Min Trail in Vietnam. Yes, we have much better IR gear that then, but targeting bad guys was not the problem, then the problem was we would blow that **** up and they'd move somewhere else and be back in business the next day. The logistics of moving assets into position isnt trivial. Even if every neighbor accommodates us, Iran will have plenty of time to know what's coming and prepare. Locating and destroying all the ground assets that they hide will be impossible. We will need to find someone to let use use their land for airbases. B2's from Diego Garcia and aircraft carriers in the Indian ocean won't enable us to get the job done. If you need me to explain this I will, but I'm going to hope not for now. We have to destroy all air defenses before moving on to anything else. B2's can fly over the whole country from Diego Garcia but only destroy fixed assets. The anti-radiation planes on the carriers that locate mobile targeting radars dont have range to cover more than a fraction of the country and have no stealth. Remember when we were going to do a pincer in Iraq from Turkey on one side and Saudi on the other? Foregone conclusion. Nobody bothered to ask the Turks - they shut us down for domestic political reasons and that was when we were friends. Iraq won't let us use their airbases or overfly. Turkey and Afghanistan too. Even if we just use Afghanistan anyway, Pakistan won't let us overfly. If we try and use Afghsnistan and Iraq both will be under constant mortar attacks and ballistic missile attacks from Iran. If we can get Saudi onboard it is possible that we can do it, but if you think it's going to be an easy couple of weeks and done you are wrong. Months and months of sorters. It'll cost us more to do than them to rebuild. We won't do more than destroy their air defenses and a significant fraction of their equipment, and after all this, what is the intended outcome? What will it accomplish besides just punching them in the nose, inflaming the entire region even more, and generating another whole generation of Muslims who want to blow up America?
After years of watching Putin and other dictators around the world do whatever the hell they want and have the West do nothing but a verbal condemnation, this is refreshing. I don't want any wars but letting evil men do whatever they please wasn't cutting it. We'll see what happens next.
This is a great question, one we should have asked before Iraq and Afghanistan. The short answer is I see no sort of war with a positive cost/benefit anslysis or meaningful victory condition. To my view, an air bombing only war would be the equivalent of punching a bear in the nose for stealing food from your campground. There is nothing gained short of a feeling of getting even and a payday for the arms industry. It will only change Iranian behavior for the worse annoy our allies and let the Russians and Chinese gain international influence. Any intervention that would actually change the situation will come at an untenable cost.
I had no issues with your post at all. In fact, I found it quite polite. That depends on what the expectation is. If our air force can't take out a few highly flammable and very exposed targets of opportunity, then we have a LOT bigger problems than the current situation. ie, this is where the distinction I pointed out comes into play. I don't expect any all out war, in which we have to decimate their military. I see a limited war in which a few targets of opportunity and value will be attacked. Very good analysis, and precisely why a war of that nature would never be undertaken, except under extreme circumstances, which I truly can't even envision. Basically, it would have to evolve to where taking out their nuclear capability became imperative. Not sure we'd invade or initiate all out war even then. Again, that depends entirely on the job. The above would be far far more than sufficient for taking out their refineries. Wouldn't even need to use that many of them. Exactly. What are refineries? Fixed assets. Highly flammable, vulnerable, and exposed fixed assets. Probably don't even need to worry about it (although if it came to it, we'd overfly anyway. Again...it would essentially just be one series of flights. Again, the mission would just be to take out their refineries. I don't think it would be a couple of weeks. I think it would be one night. Maybe more depending on what anti missile assets would need to be taken out (which I don't think would be necessary for cruise missiles?) If for some reason you don't think that's possible, please elaborate, and we can have another discussion on the dire state of our air strike capabilities. I mean, Iraq managed to attack Saudi's refineries (albeit on a smaller scale) with far far less than we have available. Take out their refineries, and you've essentially destroyed their economy, thereby disabling their ability to fund their proxy wars, and probably even to continue their nuclear ambitions. As for the blowback, I think a limited strike, as crippling as that might be, is both...limited, and explainable. We wouldn't do it unless Iran escalated severely on their end, and making the case that there weren't many other options short of the all out war you describe seems fairly clear. Sure, lots in the area would be against us for doing that...but they'd all be against us anyway. The bigger problem of what that might due to global oil supply would be limited because basically they're under sanctions anyway. I don't think the conflict would broaden, due to the very brief nature of it. Russia etc might issue harsh words, but given that the damage would already be done...what else would they do? Too late to send assets to Iran to defend against further attacks. Now mind you I'm not advocating these actions. I'm just saying that if it comes to increased military response, this is likely the most it would be. At least unless Iran (not us) were hell bent on true war. Which, again, they have nothing to gain from. I don't see us getting into a campaign of the type you outline...for the very reasons you state. We gain nothing from doing so, as you point out.
There are transgressions all the time and they are not all answered with force. I’m still waiting for President Trump to take action against Russia and Putin for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Further the USA and Iran had an agreement that President decided to back out that has directly resulted in increased tension with Iran. Also it is interesting that the President has time to inform Lindsay Graham and congressional Republicans and Putin but not congressional Democrats. He unilaterally decided to assassinate a military leader of another nation. You have your partisan head so far up the Presidents ass that you fail to realize that what you think is great now, will be equally exploited by the other party in 4-8 years.
A limited attack like that is very doable. If that's what you were talking about, I misunderstood, sorry. I don't know anything about how many refineries therw are or how the refineries are laid out, but hopefully you could take out a couple of the fixed S300 SAM sites and the refineries in one night like the attack on Lybia in 86. You could mix in a ton of sub launched tomahawks to supplement the punch without putting people's lives in danger, too. Personally don't think it would be what I'd prefer to do ans I'm not sure exactly how that would play out afterwords with the Iranians but definately possible and more feasible than destroying Iran's entire military and running a nonstop bombing campaign for a couple of months. There would be a further temptation to add nuclear reactors, but creating a few Chernobyls and watching Iranian babies slough off all their skin cells in the nightly news would be a terrible look.
That you would take the word of Trump, Pompeo, and the Pentagon despite them all being some of the biggest liars ever is frankly, incredible. Do you history at all? How many times do you need to be lied to in order to question the liars? http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/the-murderin-saudis-and-their-american-enablers.293058/ Refutation refuted. We should all be disgusted and embarrassed by the perpetual state of war that we've been in for decades now.
Looking forward to all the people happy about the attack signing up for the military, and putting their life on the line for the billionaire class, oh errrr, I mean freedom. DD
Well we did kill a bunch of Russians in Syria. We killed 200-300 of their guys and they got one of our allied Syrians Here ya go..... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...enaries-commandos-islamic-state-a8370781.html The Russian radio chatter afterwards was glorious. Some soldiers were complaining about Putin letting the Americans embarrass them again and talking about all their buddies they lost.. but of course he denied they were Russian troops
Your typical liberal inability to act like an adult and have a mature conversation is duly noted...and only reflects poorly on you. Please do elaborate on how you know I think anything is great now...besides your own preconceptions. In which case...whose head is partisan, and inserted somewhere its difficult to get sufficient oxygen? Not sure what you are referring to as being 'exploited'. The powers that gave Trump the ability to do this have been in place for quite some time now...and yes, both sides have made use of them. So your point ?
Yes, that is what I was talking about. Significant, yet limited and achievable in a very short period of time. An escalation, but not one that is, or leads to, total war. It would depend on what the Iranian response was. The only drawback I see from it is I'm not sure what the next step up is in terms of escalation, if Iran is willing to take it farther. So, we'd probably do it in stages. Agree on the nuclear reactors. Plus, I believe even some of those are deeply underground (proof of their purpose, fwiw. NO ONE puts commercial reactors deeply underground. It completely defeats the purpose, due to the cost. You ONLY do that for military purposes). This is why military responses were ruled out initially in combatting Iran's nuclear ambitions. The only way to really destroy them was apparently on the ground. I do wonder though if a big bunker buster on top of them wouldn't damage them so severely as to make them unusable...or at least non functional for some time.
That any liberal even brings up the issue of lying when it comes to, well, anything, is frankly, incredible. You do like to be spoonfed your rhetoric though, and gulp it down willingly. As for me..what word of Trump, Pompeo, and the Pentagon are you even referring to? I do..do you? It would seem not. Again, still not even sure what 'word' you are referring to, and I have long indicated one should question those in authority, and what they say about events. So, if you're trying to make any sort of point here, you're doing a really bad job of it. Incorrect...unless you can point to where in that article it indicates that we gave them the weapons specifically to kill children in Yemen. Which I already indicated was specifically required to back up your claim...you might do a better job of reading before indicating refutation refuted. It just makes you look bad. Wouldn't disagree with that. The question, of course, is what to do about it. Allowing transgression to go without response has never been a path that has been successful.
That is one interpretation. The other is, that we kept threatening to blow them up and they wanted to prevent that from happening. There are certain things that they are clearly allowed under the NNPT, and if someone tried to tell me I couldn't do what they had previously allowed me by treaty, my response would be, FU, I'm doing it, try and stop me, as in, for instance, police threaten people with arrest for filming, in situations where it is perfectly within your right to film. They've always said their goal was to understand the technology and engineering behind the full nuclear cycle. It appeared to me that they were going with the Japan model, where they don't have any nuclear weapons, but they have the ability and materials to produce one in about a year, if it becomes necessary. Seems like people are OK with Japan doing that. I would be wary of blowing up underground reactors for the same reason I wouldn't blow up above ground ones - nothing would turn the world against the US quicker than mass radiation deaths from escaped radioactive material resulting in massive civilian deaths. Imagine you manage to shake the pipes a bit, so that all the water leaks out of the cooling towers and the control rods lock in place... all you've done is create a massive meltdown that could potentially generate enough heat and steam to blow the top off that underground layer. Most of the ways that you can break a reactor with bombs lead to an uncontrollable meltdown, or radioactive material being forcibly ejected from the core to the environment. But I appreciate that your interpretation fits the generally acknowledged facts, too. The other thing - I looked back his tweet, and I saw Trump talking about blowing up locations "important to Iranian culture". I sincerely hope he doesn't think bombing Mosques is a good idea, and if he blows up 2000 year old Sassanid archeology sites with no military significance, that is beyond unforgivable. I'm not sure what else important to Iranian culture he could be talking about.
We treat our vets like doodoo, then parade them around in the name of nationalism. It's a toxic war loving culture that doesn't have to be.
I think(and hope) that Trump is saying that because his negotiation strategies (both in business and now) is to keep upping the ante and bluff and hope the other side blinks. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime has a lot more to lose by blinking and Trump is a relatively impulsive, elderly politician surrounded by yes men and Iran hawks, and - most importantly - people with no understanding of the region. Nor will his base care if we blow up a few Shia sacred sites. I can dig it up if people want, but apparently we were considering hitting kyoto with a nuclear weapon instead of hiroshima or nagasaki but opted against destroying such sites of Japanese cultural heritage. And if our fire bombings of Tokyo are any evidence, we definitely were not concerned about civilians when picking where our bombs went off. The reasoning being, by American advisers, was that destroying millenia old historical sites in Japan wouldn't coerce the Japanese to surrender but would instead piss off successive generations of Japanese towards the US. It's the same factor multiplied because these are religiious and cultural sites not just for Iranians but for Persians everywhere in the greater region.
