War with Iran?

[hollodero]

(06-17-2019, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because when they went heads up Iraq won. 

Captain Obvious obviously overlooked the obvious. 

---I mean, I'm no war expert, but back in 1980 Iraq was geared up by the western nations, had all the US support they could wish for, while Iran just went through a revolution. This Iraq army alone seems to have little to do with the demoralized '13 crowd - and supposedly the Iran army has quite changed a bit within the last 30 years too.

I'm not saying that the US could lose that war, but to picture it as a piece of cake might take it a little too easy.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 10:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: ---I mean, I'm no war expert, but back in 1980 Iraq was geared up by the western nations, had all the US support they could wish for, while Iran just went through a revolution. This Iraq army alone seems to have little to do with the demoralized '13 crowd - and supposedly the Iran army has quite changed a bit within the last 30 years too.

I'm not saying that the US could lose that war, but to picture it as a piece of cake might take it a little too easy.

All Armies have changed a bit in the last 30 years. The Iraqi Army we defeated during Desert Storm was the same Iraqi Army that beat Iran. I remember how much of a foe the Republican Guard was supposed to be. Their Armies are nothing compared to ours. And don't even start to compare the Air Forces and Navies. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2019, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They were actually talking about this on NPR today. One stance is Trump wants a war so we won't transfer "Leadership" in the middle of it. Others think we must act because we are the defenders of the  Strait of Hormuz for the world, while others state it's much ado about nothing.

As to the "threat" Iran would pose. We kicked Iraq's but in about 100 hours and they kicked Iran's but. So we'd most likely have to commit the Rhode Island National Guard. Personally I don't want armed conflict and put the chances of it happening right between slim and none, but if it comes to conflict, it must be a coalition.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-red-line-in-the-sand?highlight=iran

That was Desert Storm in 1991. And what happened when we invaded Iraq in 2003? Over 140,000 hours later and we're still dealing with that shit.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2019, 04:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Those lives were not lost in Combat with the Iraqi Army. So I don't see the correlation.

What we should do after the conflict is a whole different matter.

LOL

You're either misinformed or deliberately misleading. The Iraqi insurgency as mostly former Iraqi Army soldiers wearing civilian clothing instead of their uniform.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 11:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That was Desert Storm in 1991.  And what happened when we invaded Iraq in 2003? Over 140,000 hours later and we're still dealing with that shit.

I get that you're late to the party, but the point was how long did it take to defeat their Army and the answer is a couple minutes, some of us had to stop and pee. 

Decisions we made once we toppled the government can be debated, but the short work we made of their Military cannot. 

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 08:40 PM)Dill Wrote: What would you do if you were planning a US invasion? Short of nukes?

The topography looks rather like a vast, natural mountain fort around Teheran.  A bit more open from the east, where there is some desert.

I don't see a flat, open drive to the capital as was the case in Iraq. 

Kabul was also in the mountains, but those mountains weren't bristling with sophisticated AA defenses protected in caves.

The missiles would be my biggest concern, since they are guided and hard to shoot down, and could reach US ships in the Gulf, not to mention any regional allies aiding the US.

I would use diplomacy and try not to put troops on the ground. Outside of the deserts in the east, the whole country is pock full of natural ambush sites. The American public won't tolerate casualty lists two to three times larger than those from Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Barring that, I would try to find some other country to persuade to invade them instead of us. This tactic worked really well for us in the Cold War. Unfortunately, we have already invaded two of Iran's seven neighbors.

Turkmenistan is sort of a write off. I wouldn't expect them to have much of a military. Likewise, I don't think the Armenians or Azerbijanis would be much help. What have we ever done for them, eh?

Turkey is like seriously mad at us now. They are like a rebellious child: flaunting Islamism and dating Putin on the side. I wouldn't expect much help from "our allies" at this point. Heck, I doubt if they would allow us to even fly through their airspace to support the mission.

Maybe we could persuade the Pakis to invade (we'd probably have to stop calling them "Pakis" first, though) and pay them with Saudi money. This would quite seriously be my second option. But, the Pakis aren't dumb. So they probably wouldn't do it. Besides, they are too busy worrying about India.

Russia no longer shares a land border, but they are just across the Caspian Sea. Putin wouldn't do it. He has trimmed down the Russian military into primarily a defense force. Besides, he is too busy trying to get us bogged down into it (using my own strategy against me.... that turd!!!).

So, removing the diplomacy option from the table because that's "not something real 'Mericans do anymore" and being unable to persuade the Pakis and Russians to do it for us, I guess we have to look at how it could be done with troops on the ground.

I doubt if the Iraqis would be cooperative with our efforts, seeing as such a large number of Shi'ites live there. In fact, they could really cause a great deal of problems if the border turn porous and/or if a nasty civil war breaks out between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites (which absolutely will happen if we move against Iran). I think you probably would need to jump off from Kuwait (if they would allow) and have Marines and Special Ops land to seize Bandar Mahshhr and Bandar Imam Khomeini so that you have port facilities and airports to support the invasion independently while the Navy blockades the Iranian coast. I think you would then need to drive north to seal off the border with Iraq. Bear in mind, this is mountainous terrain. Outside of the initial landing, tanks won't be a big help. It will be a slow-go. Once the border is secured, you then would need to hook east and move on Tehran. Acheiving that could be a good stopping point, if they were willing to talk and we were willing to listen. Barring that, you maybe start a campaing from Afghanistan (if they are willing) and roll up the open areas on the east side and the northeast. At this point, the country's borders would be secured and what remains of any resistance would be in the mountains. Outside of the fact that it would probably be costing billions of dollars and scores of lives every day, you would not have to move fast to root out the resistance. Just sit and wait them out. It would probably only take a couple of decades.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2019, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you can keep ignoring the fact that we defeated Iraq's Army in about 100 hours. You have no idea what would happen in Iran if we toppled their current government or if our post-war actions would be the same. It could very easily be like Desert Storm.

I've already said any Military action against Iran should be a coalition. I just balked at the suggestion that Iran would be a greater foe than Iraq.   

No, it could not. During Desert Storm we drove Saddam's forces out of Kuwait back into Iraq. We didn't dabble in regime change or nation building like we did during Operation Iraqi Freedom Cluster ****.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2019, 07:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wasn't questioning the terrain I was questioning the assertion that the Iranian Army would be so much harder to defeat than the Iraqi Army. You assert organized forces might pose a bigger threat than terrorists, I'm not sure about that in this case. We take Tehran and what reason do those in the hills have to fight? 

You sound like you're hittin' the same blunt Cheney and Rumsfeld were smoking.

What reason do they have in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Syria and Iraq to keep fighting almost two decades later and counting?

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 11:42 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, it could not. During Desert Storm we drove Saddam's forces out of Kuwait back into Iraq. We didn't dabble in regime change or nation building like we did during Operation Iraqi Freedom Cluster ****.

Fair point and it's why I said we should have a succession already in place. The biggest mistake we made in Iraq was "dabbling".  

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-17-2019, 09:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because when they went heads up Iraq won. 

Captain Obvious obviously overlooked the obvious. 

I called him back... And holy shit you are not going to believe this. He said it was 2019!! WOW! mind=blown

[*bfine32*]

You folks are a riot. I've said I don't want a war, I don't think there will be a war, and if there is a war I hope it's a coalition. None of that changes the fact the modern day Iranian Army is no more of a threat to modern day US Army than the 1990 or 2003 Iraqi Army was to the 1990 or 2003 US Army.

Do you folks really think the Iranian Army has advanced quicker than ours.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 11:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You sound like you're hittin' the same blunt Cheney and Rumsfeld were smoking.

What reason do they have in the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Syria and Iraq to keep fighting almost two decades later and counting?

Dabbling and trying to appease the PC patrol. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-17-2019, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that you're late to the party, but the point was how long did it take to defeat their Army and the answer is a couple minutes, some of us had to stop and pee. 

Decisions we made once we toppled the government can be debated, but the short work we made of their Military cannot. 

Sorry, had to work today. Uncle Sugar doesn't pay all of us to play online while at work.

We kept fighting their military after the government was toppled. Their military was already wearing civilian clothes while fighting an insurgency within the first 36 hours of the 2003 invasion. You're a cavalryman stuck in a US-Soviet European theater tank battle where everyone there is a FEBA and a FLOT and everyone wears a uniform to make it easy to know who to kill.

Name the last counter-insurgency the US has won on foreign soil? And that's the reason why "those in the hills" would have a reason to fight after the fall of Tehran.

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2019, 12:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Sorry, had to work today. Uncle Sugar doesn't pay all of us to play online while at work.

We kept fighting their military after the government was toppled. Their military was already wearing civilian clothes while fighting an insurgency within the first 36 hours of the 2003 invasion. You're a cavalryman stuck in a US-Soviet European theater tank battle where everyone there is a FEBA and a FLOT and everyone wears a uniform to make it easy to know who to kill.

Name the last counter-insurgency the US has won on foreign soil?  And that's the reason why "those in the hills" would have a reason to fight after the fall of Tehran.

Sorry about your work conditions.

If the government was toppled then it wasn't their Army.

Germany.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Dabbling and trying to appease the PC patrol. 

We invaded a country over a pack of lies and you think we were trying to appease the PC crowd? You really are hitting that Cheney/Rumsfeld blunt. The post invasion mistakes had shit to do with pleasing the PC crowd. It was piss poor planning. Plain and simple.

If they were interested in pleasing the PC crowd they wouldn't have invaded over shit they made up.

I guess we've been dabbling in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting?

[*bfine32*]

(06-18-2019, 12:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We invaded a country over a pack of lies and you think we were trying to appease the PC crowd?  You really are hitting that Cheney/Rumsfeld blunt. The post invasion mistakes had shit to do with pleasing the PC crowd. It was piss poor planning. Plain and simple.

If they were interested in pleasing the PC crowd they wouldn't have invaded over shit they made up.

I guess we've been dabbling in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting?

You have your opinion and I have mine. Perhaps we could keep my smoking and work  habits out of the discussion

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2019, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You folks are a riot. I've said I don't want a war, I don't think there will be a war, and if there is a war I hope it's a coalition. None of that changes the fact the modern day Iranian Army is no more of a threat to modern day US Army than the 1990 or 2003 Iraqi Army was to the 1990 or 2003 US Army.

Do you folks really think the Iranian Army has advanced quicker than ours.

No one thinks the Iranian Army has advanced quicker than ours and no one has made that point.

During Desert Storm the ground combat lasted 100 hours. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were still engaged in ground combat 8 years later against an insurgency less well equipped than the Iranian Army which was defeated in 100 hours during 1991 when we got kicked out of the country with the job still unfinished. And we're still combating ISIS as a result 16 years later.

So suggesting the Rhode Island National Guard could wrap up an Iranian invasion in any sort of timely manner with minimal loss of life completely ignores the US military's track record conducting counter-insurgency operations during the past fifty years plus. It's effin laughable. That's the type good ol' boy over confidence which lead Bush to get over 5000 American servicemembers killed in Iraq over nothing. We'll just shock and awe 'em again.

Reminds me of my battalion commander telling us not to kill too many Iraqis because we don't won't to discourage them from surrendering. Such stupidity.

This is thread is like Catch-22 had an illegitimate love child with Dr. Strangelove. "Gentleman, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-18-2019, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You folks are a riot. I've said I don't want a war, I don't think there will be a war, and if there is a war I hope it's a coalition. None of that changes the fact the modern day Iranian Army is no more of a threat to modern day US Army than the 1990 or 2003 Iraqi Army was to the 1990 or 2003 US Army.

Do you folks really think the Iranian Army has advanced quicker than ours.

They are buying weapons from Russia and have "recently" gained nuclear technology. 

Its like a cave man discovering fire, and then belt fed weapons a week later. While we have been steadily improving we haven't taken massive leaps in capabilities like that. Unless the X-37 really struck gold. 

Hell it wasn't very long ago when they stole our stealth drone. And supposedly shopped the technology windfall with our "allies" Russia and China. 

I don't think anyone is trying to say Iran is a more powerful force than us. But you are trying to act like the crazy dude standing on the corner armed to the teeth screaming obscenities is not a threat we need to take serious. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2019, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sorry about your work conditions.

If the government was toppled then it wasn't their Army.

Germany.  

Just the same soldiers fighting the same insurgency. Changing their headgear didn't make the KIAs killed by their IEDs any less dead.

But their experience and training did help train the religious wingnuts immigrating into Iraq eager to kill American soldiers to be more effective fighters.

Go ahead and check the US KIA numbers. Those numbers went up as their Army transitioned to the insurgency full time about May/June 2003 when Paul Bremmer kicked it into high gear.

And what's different between post WWII Germany and Afghanistan, Iraq/Syria, and a potential insurgency in Iran?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2019, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You have your opinion and I have mine. Perhaps we could keep my smoking and work  habits out of the discussion

Just explaining why I was late to the party. Show me where I mentioned your smoking and work habits specifically by name in this thread? I didn't. You assumed I was talking about you. Guilty conscience? I don't know. You tell me.

It's 'Merica, dude. If you don't like me exercising my freedom to write what I want then you can join Rush Limbaugh overseas in Costa Rica. Oh, wait. He didn't leave.