+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: War with Iran? (/Thread-War-with-Iran)
RE: War with Iran? - Bengalzona - 06-19-2019
(06-18-2019, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: I guess a final question is what happens AFTER the win? How many troops would be required to "nation build"?
One good thing about Iran, the population is not nearly as divided between different sects and and tribes as Iraq or Afghanistan which would fight amongst themselves and try to become autonomous.
But the bad thing is that the vast majority of the population will despise us as occupiers. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, there won't be factions we can cozy up to and play against the rest (i.e. Kurds, Afghani tribes, etc.). There would be a large and organized underground movement to force us out, the likes of which we have not seen since the Viet Cong. And because of the size and topography of the country we could not even hope to weed them all out. I don't believe that we could nation-build there. No matter how many troops we used. And I suspect we would need Vietnam levels of troops (100,000+) stationed there just to occupy. That would bankrupt us eventually.
I envision that an occupation would be something akin to Afghanistan where we try to secure Tehran and some other cities and supply routes through the country, and then try to "win the hearts and minds" of the population through the urban populations. I don't know, maybe we try and build a new Studio 54 in downtown Tehran and restart where we left off in 1979, eh.
But we would still need to secure the borders, particularly the border with Iraq, in order to keep weaponry and troops from free-flowing back and forth (like Afghanistan). That means a lot of far-flung outposts in the hinterlands of the country. And those are susceptible to attack from guerilla forces. And, like Vietnam, some of those would be overrun. We didn't lose any major battles in Vietnam, but small units (even up to company size) and outposts were overrun somewhat regularly. That, combined with supply line ambushes which have become so common in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean massive casualties... lots of body bags.
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:46 AM)ISociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There were plenty of people stating we would have a tough go of it. I suppose with the benefit of hindsight you now know they were all completely wrong.
Here's a very simple fact. if we actually unleashed our military there isn't a single nation on Earth we wouldn't steamroll. This would take the political will to go completely gloves off, which doesn't seem to exist much anymore, but it is a fact. I'm talking conventional arms only btw.
Name a battle of consequence that we lost? Pro tip, you can't. The French got raped at Dien Bien Phu, name even a slightly similar US defeat. We lost Vietnam for the same reason we "stalemated" Korea, we never took the fight to the enemy's territory, either North Vietnam or China respectively. You can't fight a purely defensive war and hope to prevail. The fact that we fought China to a standstill on their home turf (or close enough to it not to matter), while doing nothing to actually attack their homeland, is an impressive feat on its own. Imagine a country fighting the US, but the war was fought entirely in Canada with absolutely no attacks being allowed against US territory. Recipe for success?
Not clear what this is all about. No one is claiming the US does not have the most powerful military in the world. But you still need to insist that it does. It would "steamroll" any other nation, including presumably China or Russia.
Then you appear to grant that the US lost the Vietnam war. But "pro tip" me that the US never lost a battle. There was the moment to grasp the point of my mentioning Vietnam. Instead you go on to, what, I'm not sure. Defend US honor? We'd have won if we'd had the will? Against China too? The takeaway then is to "have the will next time"?
There is a good reason why liberal democracies do not have "the will to fight" year after year, far from their own borders, against countries which pose no existential threat. Until the US turns into a dictatorship, there is no real value in arguing there'd have been no stalemates "if only we could take the fight to their territory"; better to finally recognize that "infinitely inferior" fighting forces can exact costs which democracies don't want to pay. And so stalemate "infinitely superior" forces. I want the people in charge of US military might thinking about THAT, and NOT what might happen "if only."
(06-19-2019, 12:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The second Iraq war was a mistake, I've said so since it was proposed. I don't see how this disproves the fact that US forces are infinitely superior than those arrayed against us.
You don't see how granting the second Iraq war was a mistake disproves the fact that US forces are "infinitely superior."
And again, I don't see anyone trying to prove that the US does not have the world's best military, Iraq war or no.
(06-19-2019, 12:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Iran has no ability to "stalemate" us. The same Iraqi army you laughingly disdained above fought them to a standstill for eight years. Oh wait, they've evolved, but Iraq did not.
The joint chiefs don't want another war unless vital US interests are at stake. It has nothing to do, at all, with any worries about Iranian military ability.
Alright then, please explain to the class how the Iranian army has evolved to become a more substantial threat. Do you actually buy into all those Iranian military photoshops?
In all seriousness, one can not want a war with Iran and still be realistic about the mudhole we would stomp in their ass if it actually ever erupted into armed conflict.
Ok then, some corrections. Iran was not trying to invade Iraq. It was defending its own territory. So Iran fought Iraq to a standstill, and then extracted the Shatt al Arab concession.
And no, Iraq did not "evolve" after that with all the limitations placed upon its military in '91, while yes, Iran did evolve, developing a formidable stockpile of missiles. No professional war planner today would be arguing that this was the "same" Iranian military that fought Saddam 30 years ago. None would argue that the Iran-Iraq war affords some baseline measure of Iran today any more than Mike Tomlin would prep a game against the Browns in 2019 by studying their 1980 personnel and playbook.
Iran is currently 14th on the Global Firepower Index, above Israel and North Korea. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has cautioned that Iran has had plenty of time to examine how the US projects power in the region, to work out ways to counter that ability--ways which hinder a heavy "close-in footprint" on the Iraq war model. Crucial here is a need to respond to Iran's developing ability to deny space well beyond the Persian Gulf now. https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CSBA_SWA_FNL-WEB.pdf. Among the worries about war with Iran at this point is whether their numerous missiles could overwhelm US naval defenses. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-bombs-would-fall-us-iran-war-would-be-one-bloody-affair-63142.
Perhaps instead of "stalemate," I should have used the term "quagmire." Could Iran create a quagmire for the US' "infinitely superior" US military? Could it do that even after the US stomped a "mudhole" in their ass?
I don't see why not. The US is still fighting the Taliban, who had neither the manpower nor the territory the Iranians do. And neither Iraq nor the Taliban had thousands of rockets which could reach ships and other targets 2,000 km away, with the potential to inflict horrendous damage on US forces before they even arrive. Nor did either have the potential to expand the conflict to 4-5 other countries.
Puzzling. You claim that "worries about Iranian military ability" would not factor into our war planners decision to go to war against Iran. I doubt very much that is the case. So concerning is Iran's defense that some of us worry they may turn to some form of nuclear option to avoid the risk.
You seem focused on whether the US could take out their tanks and aircraft. And ready to challenge anyone who thinks the US could not. And for you that would settle the issue of whether the US was successful. No costs beyond that, a bilateral encounter with no likely regional ramifications at all. Over and done.
RE: War with Iran? - BakertheBeast - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There were plenty of people stating we would have a tough go of it. I suppose with the benefit of hindsight you now know they were all completely wrong.Big deal. Here is another simple fact. When you spend more on military spending than the next 12 countries combined you should "steamroll" any
Here's a very simple fact. if we actually unleashed our military there isn't a single nation on Earth we wouldn't steamroll. This would take the political will to go completely gloves off, which doesn't seem to exist much anymore, but it is a fact. I'm talking conventional arms only btw.
Iran has no ability to "stalemate" us. The same Iraqi army you laughingly disdained above fought them to a standstill for eight years. Oh wait, they've evolved, but Iraq did not.
Name a battle of consequence that we lost? Pro tip, you can't. The French got raped at Dien Bien Phu, name even a slightly similar US defeat. We lost Vietnam for the same reason we "stalemated" Korea, we never took the fight to the enemy's territory, either North Vietnam or China respectively. You can't fight a purely defensive war and hope to prevail. The fact that we fought China to a standstill on their home turf (or close enough to it not to matter), while doing nothing to actually attack their homeland, is an impressive feat on its own. Imagine a country fighting the US, but the war was fought entirely in Canada with absolutely no attacks being allowed against US territory. Recipe for success?
The second Iraq war was a mistake, I've said so since it was proposed. I don't see how this disproves the fact that US forces are infinitely superior than those arrayed against us.
The joint chiefs don't want another war unless vital US interests are at stake. It has nothing to do, at all, with any worries about Iranian military ability.
Alright then, please explain to the class how the Iranian army has evolved to become a more substantial threat. Do you actually buy into all those Iranian military photoshops?
In all seriousness, one can not want a war with Iran and still be realistic about the mudhole we would stomp in their ass if it actually ever erupted into armed conflict.
nation on earth. That is like in baseball ,the Yankee's wining most of the time. When there is no salary cap and in some cases have a 30 to 1 population advantage over smaller markets you can buy up all the best players. You should win most of the time. Not impressed.
Why spend 12 times more? Wouldn't say 4 times more be adequate? Oh I know why. It would be cutting into the pocket books of alot of rich "patriots".
RE: War with Iran? - Arturo Bandini - 06-19-2019
When the side of good is represented by Trump, Ben Slimane and Nethanyaou, you better not know who is supposed to be the side of evil.
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There were plenty of people stating we would have a tough go of it. I suppose with the benefit of hindsight you now know they were all completely wrong.
Here's a very simple fact. if we actually unleashed our military there isn't a single nation on Earth we wouldn't steamroll. This would take the political will to go completely gloves off, which doesn't seem to exist much anymore, but it is a fact. I'm talking conventional arms only btw.
Iran has no ability to "stalemate" us. The same Iraqi army you laughingly disdained above fought them to a standstill for eight years. Oh wait, they've evolved, but Iraq did not.
Name a battle of consequence that we lost? Pro tip, you can't. The French got raped at Dien Bien Phu, name even a slightly similar US defeat. We lost Vietnam for the same reason we "stalemated" Korea, we never took the fight to the enemy's territory, either North Vietnam or China respectively. You can't fight a purely defensive war and hope to prevail. The fact that we fought China to a standstill on their home turf (or close enough to it not to matter), while doing nothing to actually attack their homeland, is an impressive feat on its own. Imagine a country fighting the US, but the war was fought entirely in Canada with absolutely no attacks being allowed against US territory. Recipe for success?
The second Iraq war was a mistake, I've said so since it was proposed. I don't see how this disproves the fact that US forces are infinitely superior than those arrayed against us.
The joint chiefs don't want another war unless vital US interests are at stake. It has nothing to do, at all, with any worries about Iranian military ability.
Alright then, please explain to the class how the Iranian army has evolved to become a more substantial threat. Do you actually buy into all those Iranian military photoshops?
In all seriousness, one can not want a war with Iran and still be realistic about the mudhole we would stomp in their ass if it actually ever erupted into armed conflict.
Like the mud holes we stomped in the asses of Afghanistan and Iraq?
RE: War with Iran? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 10:08 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Like the mud holes we stomped in the asses of Afghanistan and Iraq?
You're smarter than this. Defeating conventional forces is not the same thing as fighting partisans. To thoroughly defeat partisans you have to engage in activities that would not be tolerated by today's standards of armed conflict. Regardless, the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities and ability to make more would be the primary objective. Reducing their conventional forces to near nil would also be on the table. Both are well within US ability.
As an aside it is apparently necessary to point out that countering erroneous points made by others on this topic is not analogous to calling for armed conflict with Iran. These obvious things need to be spelled out on this board for some reason. This is not directed at you btw, just a general comment.
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-19-2019
(06-18-2019, 07:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The main reason we keep getting into these failing situations with our military is because some people refuse to admit that the military has ever failed.
Apparently Bfine thinks the parent of every person who lost a child in Vietnam thinks we won that war also.
No, the main reason we get into these types of situations is because of politicians failing to solve these situations without the use force and for failing to have clear strategic objectives when using force.
RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 10:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, the main reason we get into these types of situations is because of politicians failing to solve these situations without the use force and for failing to have clear strategic objectives when using force.
Bravo.
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-19-2019
(06-18-2019, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Son, we live in a world that has conflicts, and those conflicts have to be fought by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Fred Toast, you Dino? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the calls to action, and you curse the Military. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That these actions, while often tragic, probably saved lives. And the Military's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want Soldiers on that battlefield you need Soldiers on that battlefield. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom those Soldiers provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think is a failure.
You don't know anything. You believe what you are told to believe by your superiors. You thought that if Vietnam fell then communism would spread all over the world. You thought Irag had WMD.
My freedom is protected more by international business interests than your little gun.
RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-19-2019
Iran had a pretty good, secular culture until the religious people took over.
Many of their citizens might not remember the time before that happened.
Not an endorsement of war/regime change...just a thought on getting religion out of government.
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're smarter than this. Defeating conventional forces is not the same thing as fighting partisans. To thoroughly defeat partisans you have to engage in activities that would not be tolerated by today's standards of armed conflict. Regardless, the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities and ability to make more would be the primary objective. Reducing their conventional forces to near nil would also be on the table. Both are well within US ability.
As an aside it is apparently necessary to point out that countering erroneous points made by others on this topic is not analogous to calling for armed conflict with Iran. These obvious things need to be spelled out on this board for some reason. This is not directed at you btw, just a general comment.
I never claimed conventional fighting was the same as counter insurgency operations. That's pretty much my entire point. An invasion of Iran will result in a protracted insurgency that will last much longer and result in much more loss of life than any conventional fighting. And the money. OMG, our debt and our deficit will continue on the post 9/11 trajectory. (If we continue this type of spending we'll go broke like the former USSR.) Any conventional fighting will be an appetizer while the insurgency will be the main course. Failing to recognize this will just repeat our results with Afghanistan and Iraq.
RE: War with Iran? - Belsnickel - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Iran had a pretty good, secular culture until the religious people took over.
Many of their citizens might not remember the time before that happened.
Not an endorsement of war/regime change...just a thought on getting religion out of government.
Which, BTW, the US and Saudi Arabia hold a lot of blame for happening. The US for their meddling, Saudi Arabia for their embracing a radical form of Islam and exporting that around the region, influencing the rise of radical Islamic thought even within Shia Islam.
RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which, BTW, the US and Saudi Arabia hold a lot of blame for happening. The US for their meddling, Saudi Arabia for their embracing a radical form of Islam and exporting that around the region, influencing the rise of radical Islamic thought even within Shia Islam.
Absolutely.
And some chicken hearts are dumb enough to want to go get involved again.
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 02:36 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: One good thing about Iran, the population is not nearly as divided between different sects and and tribes as Iraq or Afghanistan which would fight amongst themselves and try to become autonomous.
But the bad thing is that the vast majority of the population will despise us as occupiers. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, there won't be factions we can cozy up to and play against the rest (i.e. Kurds, Afghani tribes, etc.). There would be a large and organized underground movement to force us out, the likes of which we have not seen since the Viet Cong. And because of the size and topography of the country we could not even hope to weed them all out. I don't believe that we could nation-build there. No matter how many troops we used. And I suspect we would need Vietnam levels of troops (100,000+) stationed there just to occupy. That would bankrupt us eventually.
I envision that an occupation would be something akin to Afghanistan where we try to secure Tehran and some other cities and supply routes through the country, and then try to "win the hearts and minds" of the population through the urban populations. I don't know, maybe we try and build a new Studio 54 in downtown Tehran and restart where we left off in 1979, eh.
But we would still need to secure the borders, particularly the border with Iraq, in order to keep weaponry and troops from free-flowing back and forth (like Afghanistan). That means a lot of far-flung outposts in the hinterlands of the country. And those are susceptible to attack from guerilla forces. And, like Vietnam, some of those would be overrun. We didn't lose any major battles in Vietnam, but small units (even up to company size) and outposts were overrun somewhat regularly. That, combined with supply line ambushes which have become so common in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean massive casualties... lots of body bags.
We didn't have enough troops to secure Afghanistan's border with Pakistan or Iraq's border with Syria and the insurgents used that to their advantage. I don't have confidence we could secure the Iranian border with Iraq.
I also believe an invasion of Iran would result in another proxy war like Iraq for us and Afghanistan for USSR. Saudi Arabia will use Iraq as a proxy vs. Iran. While Russia (Putin) will use Syria to prop up Iran to use against America the way America used Afghanistan in the 1980s vs USSR. All while fomenting the Sunni-Shia schism to add a dash of sectarianism which will breathe new life into ISIS or an ISIS like organization. A proxy war, an insurgency, and a sectarian civil war combined must be a war hawks wet dream.
But, thank god we can all rest assured conventional fighting will be over in about 100 hours. That's when the real work will begin.
BTW, Trump still hasn't nominated a new Secretary of Defense since his last one quit in protest. Ruminate on that.
RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 10:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're smarter than this. Defeating conventional forces is not the same thing as fighting partisans. To thoroughly defeat partisans you have to engage in activities that would not be tolerated by today's standards of armed conflict. Regardless, the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities and ability to make more would be the primary objective. Reducing their conventional forces to near nil would also be on the table. Both are well within US ability.
As an aside it is apparently necessary to point out that countering erroneous points made by others on this topic is not analogous to calling for armed conflict with Iran. These obvious things need to be spelled out on this board for some reason. This is not directed at you btw, just a general comment.
This was my original assertion and what threw everyone on a tangent. I have also said that our plan after victory is more thought out. Some have either such a disdain for combat or the Commander in Chief that they are willing to claim it would be a stalemate or worse. I've said before: no one hates combat more than those that have witnessed its casualties.
Like you I have made no call to arms, but if it goes that way I have total confidence in the might of our military.
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 10:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, the main reason we get into these types of situations is because of politicians failing to solve these situations without the use force and for failing to have clear strategic objectives when using force.
There are some who might read this caution and hear you saying the US military could not defeat Iran's conventional forces! LOL
Sometimes we get into quagmires because generals tell their civilian superiors that the military option would be a cakewalk. Send in a Marine division. That will tip the balance of forces in favor of the US. No? Then bomb North Vietnam. Light at the end of the tunnel. Not working? Then drop more tonnage on Cambodia than all of WWII. Still not there? If only we could have invaded the North, and then China!
But Congress says no! Lacks the will to carry the fight to their territory.
That hasn't happened so much since Vietnam. My current worry is civilian authority overruling the military for exactly the reasons you say. Or maybe worse in the case of the current administration, since the goal seems to be to push Iran to attack some vaguely defined US interest so we can respond to their "aggression."
We can defeat their conventional forces though. Same military that fought Saddam back in the 80s. Nothing to worry about if it comes to war.
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: why wouldn't I think Iraq had WMDs without going there.
Because our intelligence community said their was no credible evidence that they did. Thats why W had to stovepipe bogus claims through the Office of Special Plans to justify the invasion.
Like i said. You know nothing except what your superiors tell you to believe. And even after the truth comes out you refuse to acvept it.
RE: War with Iran? - bfine32 - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because our intelligence community said their was no credible evidence that they did. Thats why W had to stovepipe bogus claims through the Office of Special Plans to justify the invasion.
Like i said. You know nothing except what your superiors tell you to believe. And even after the truth comes out you refuse to acvept it.
Iraq didn't have WMDs.
Let me try to explain something to you that COL Jessup tried to do.
In the Military you follow orders and sometimes you do so without question. That is why as a leader when you can you explain your reasoning, methodology, and motivation for your decision to your subordinates. So when the situation dictates you follow/give orders without questions these orders are followed because hopefully you've established enough trust that they believe in your decision. So YES, often I followed orders without question.
But as COL Jessup said: We follow words such as honor, code, discipline, oath, and obedience. We follow these because we serve in a field that you have the luxury of being ignorant toward and use them as punchlines and slurs on Social Media. But unlike COL Jessup I don't want you to pick up as rifle because i doubt you know which is the dangerous end.
RE: War with Iran? - Bengalzona - 06-19-2019
To whom the shoe fits,
I have found that one of the best ways to avoid making posts into personal attacks is to avoid statements starting in "you".
For your consideration prior to the 'shoe dropping',
The Management
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-19-2019
(06-19-2019, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Next time your freedom is jeopardized call someone with a business interest.I will if you promise to keep out of the way.