War with Iran?

[Dill]

(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.