Based upon what has happened to Iran's neighbors, I would surrender and tell the Americans everything they wanted to know and collect a multi-million dollar reward for it.
Based upon what has happened to Iran's neighbors, I would surrender and tell the Americans everything they wanted to know and collect a multi-million dollar reward for it.
This is part of my reasoning. Playing to our strengths, rather than those of the enemy. I could probably break out my Sun-Tzu or my binder full of 4th gen warfare articles to support this idea (and make it fashionable and buzzword cool). Actually, it's a 3rd gen warfare holdover, I think. The idea of pitting your strength against your enemy's weakness. The USA's strength is conventional, 3rd gen warfare. The 4th generation just isnt our bag, baby. Not yet anyway. We CAN do counter-insurgency and win, but it SUCKS. We're not very good at it yet. But our enemies usually are. But what they cant do, not on our level, is kick ass with tanks and planes, etc etc. Hence the idea of punitive expeditions. They pit our strength against our enemies' weakness.Originally Posted by Xenophon
I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.
"The Infantry’s primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final." - Paragraph 1-1, FM 3-21.8: Infantry Rifle PLT and SQD.
- M.A. Holzbach
Now we're getting somewhere
All right. How many nukes would you deliver? With what delivery system? A speedboat to the US fleet offshore? Or a tugboat full of "refugees?"I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.
And in what way do you resort to guerilla warfare? How do you prepare your nation and your government for a guerilla struggle? What military techniques, tactics and procedures do you lay down for the troops to follow?
Exactly what they're planning to do, and have been for decades. The only way to meet our goals (regime change, lack of nuclear capability) without playing directly to their strength is a punitive expedition.resort immedietly to guerilla warfare
No we are not getting anywhere
Mr. Jones it was widely reported that Iraqi genrals were recruited to either act on our behalf(allow troops to surrender) or agree to do nothing(don't destroy oilwells). Why cain't we do it in Iran? Anybody answer that would like.
The administration is having an extremely difficult time politically even maintaining current ground strength in Iraq, and is only able to increase strength by a tiny margin in Afghanistan because it is generally off the radar. So, given that regime change in Iran can't be forced without a ground component - where are they going to come from and how is it to be presented to the public?
Unless a major terrorist incident targeting Americans occurs and can be directly linked to Iran, it ain't gonna happen. A short, sharp, sustained air campaign targeting Iran's nuke facilities would probably be supported by the US public - if collateral casualties are absolutely minimized. But in today's political environment, commitment of ground troops to another target of regime change is not feasible.
Anyway, if somehow we foment the fall of the Mullahcracy - there is no government-in-exile or clear leader-in-waiting ready to take charge. The most likely outcome is factional fighting, with stronger elements perhaps being able to take control of Tehran and key central parts of the country, with the outlying regions falling under control of armed ethnic factions. Think for a moment upon the potential impact this could have upon our own ops in the bordering states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the effects upon our fragile alliance with Turkey, as we take the blame when the PKK suddenly becomes better able to exploit that particular border area, widening their potential AO....
Not sure where you're going with this.
Your're probably right. Which is sad. I suppose it'll take a mushroom cloud over an American city before the people will support doing something about Iranian nukes.
Good point about the negative impact on Iraqi operations. But maybe it would inspire us to head out to the Iranian border and get out of the Iraqi cities. Would that be a bad thing? As far as Turkey, I dont see what we owe them. They wouldnt let us in for the invasion of Iraq. And I wonder who would be a better ally, Turkey, or Kurdistan? But the internation intrigue really isnt my strong suit...
"The Infantry’s primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final." - Paragraph 1-1, FM 3-21.8: Infantry Rifle PLT and SQD.
- M.A. Holzbach
The Other Punitive Expedtion
To my understanding the original objectives of OIF were no sadam,no WMD,Democratic framework installed. That has been done!! Why don't we seize and control the Oil facilities until they figure out THEIR politics. Cordon and protect the oil and get a share of the profits to pay america back!! I think if there is some positvie economic benefit to america from OIF support for a long term mission could be established or at least accepted. Every american understands oil prices and oil supplies, tie us military missions to this and maybe we have a chance. Yes /No/Maybe anybody respond.
If you recall, among the civilian planners of OIF, there were repeated statements that Iraq's oil profits would pay for rebuilding the country. Yet another example of blinkered ignorance ignoring existing intel. Iraq's oil not only is unable to pay for the costs of the rebuilding (let alone the occupation), to date it has yet to be able to even completely fund the cost of restoring and modernizing Iraq's oil facilities to full operating capacity. Of course, a part of this is the bad guy's regular targeting of oil infrastructure...
That's my point
Jed that's my point. It is an assest that we could seize and protect and turn into something that would benefit the US and Iraq. Yes, I read everyday how they are attacking oil infrastructure and how poorly maintained it is. But again that's my point, they don't know how to run and they cain't protect it we should do it. Crazy,yes,no,maybe,change it around some?
Where I'm going
Where I'm going with questions about the (hypothetical) Iranian response is this: they're going to have one. Right now the assumption is that nothing can defeat our conventional assault. In the sense that they can't deny our soldiers the use of territory or maintain a body of troops with the capacity to conduct maneuver warfare that's absolutely right. In the sense that maneuver warfare will get us what we want, I think it's absolutely wrong.
Our problem isn't with the Iranian Army (which would be the target of maneuver war). We could certainly deploy engineers to destroy centrifuges, reactors and other equipment - when we can locate it.
Given the operational limitations your plan puts on our forces, mainly that the mission has to be quick, we can't do some other things.
1) We can't surprise them. A fast, lightning operation that can defeat the Iranian army and accomplish our objectives would call for a massive ground force. That takes a long, long time to deploy. Many months. They'll certainly see this coming - and make a variety of plans to deal with it. You obviously haven't given any real thought as to the specifics of those plans - a few minutes of concentrated effort on your part would reveal a lot of ugly things that they could do to harm our interests and kill our troops.
2) We can't target named individuals. History suggests this: Pancho Villa, Fidel Castro, Gen. Aidid, Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, etc. The list of guys we've caught is also instructive: Che Guevara, Pablo Escobar, Saddam Hussein. Each one of these individuals took months or years of effort to catch - even when our best troops were involved with no political constraints on their search methods. Take it as given that we haven't particularly improved in this regard.
3) We can't completely abrogate the laws of land warfare. In a media saturated environment, where the US military has taken enough PR hits from abu Ghraib, Fallujah, GITMO and Haditha we're going to have to remain somewhat sensitive in our targeting.
Given those limitations, even the most massive military invasion force will only accomplish so much for us. In fact, I think the accomplishment is worth so little that it's not worth doing.
Back to the point
Capt. Holzbach, well I see you survived the sneak attack by refugees in tugboats with nuclear weapons, whew that was close. Don't worry I never got the reward money after my defection. But back to the point. I think your idea has a lot of merit.
1)So forget Iran, can you expand your idea by explaining a scenario you have or had in mind?
2) Care to comment on my suggestion about seizing the oil wells.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks