Efficacy of punitive strikes?

[Xenophon]

You're definitly on to something, Captain, and I've been chewing on the idea myself specifically in regards to Iran. I would think that a concept like this would work particularly well in a region where the culture respects force over just about everything else. No nation in the world can come close to projecting the amount of death and destruction that we can, but trying to win a popularity contest isn't playing to that strength.

In regards to Iran: We obviously don't have the numbers to invade and occupy like we did Iraq and Afghanistan. But a punitive expedition there would send a message to the rest of the world that we are by no means defenseless because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, both occupations would look like Utopia compared to the chaos ensuing in Iran. We go in, kill off any military or government opposition, break the the infrastructure capable of producing nukes, then leave. As mentioned above, there is that required sense of "nation" present in Iran along with opposition groups ready to sieze the oppurtunity.

[Jones_RE]

Suppose we launch a punitive expedition to Iran. Put yourself in the shoes of their senior military planning staff: what would you do? What steps would you take to prevent a US invasion from toppling your regime?

[slapout9]

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.

[CPT Holzbach]

No nation in the world can come close to projecting the amount of death and destruction that we can, but trying to win a popularity contest isn't playing to that strength.

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.

Suppose we launch a punitive expedition to Iran. Put yourself in the shoes of their senior military planning staff: what would you do? What steps would you take to prevent a US invasion from toppling your regime?

I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.

[Jones_RE]

I'd nuke the hell outa the Great Satan, and resort immedietly to guerilla warfare.

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?"

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?

[Xenophon]

resort immedietly to guerilla warfare

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[CPT Holzbach]

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?"

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?

Not sure where you're going with this.

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.

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.

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....

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...

[slapout9]

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.