Iran Assessment

[John21]

I might be off on this, but I'll take a stab.

Assessment:

-Bush put a Navy Admiral in charge of our forces in the Middle East. On the surface, that's not a huge issue, nor is it unprecedented, but it is questionable. A commander that came out of the infantry ranks would be preferable, especially considering scenarios our troops are deployed in, so my only conclusion would be there's a broader strategy at work.

-We've deployed two carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. I guess they could be needed for ground support, but considering we've throttled back Air Force missions over the last year, that's questionable.

-I have no idea what the submarines are doing, or how many are in the theater. However, I do know they would be under the control of a Navy Admiral. But they're our best first-strike weapon. A fast attack-class sub like the Newport that just bumped into a Japanese tanker over there, carries the Tomahawk - the ultimate air defense equalizer.

-Then there's the drones or UAV's, like the new versions that were tested in the recent attack on Somalia. Aside from surveillance, they can carry and drop a nifty little device called a "sniffer". These things are not much bigger than an ice chest, and can pick up, triangulate and communicate the location, within a few yards, of a discrete trace of radiation or any chemical elements.

-Plus the U.S. is constantly evaluating and updating warplans and first-strike options on every country that is potentially hostile to our country. So something like Korona which is the Marine's current war game model for neutralizing, and/or invading an unnamed country in a desert environment with two mountainous and one land/sea entry point, are constantly being worked on. And I'm pretty sure some British units were over here in November, to participate in the game. The Army has a similar model called NAIR. (which is why I have a problem with the Army. At least in the Marines all our war plans had a phonetic connection with beer. But, NAIR - isn't that what a girl shaves her legs with?)

Anyway, that's my slightly outdated assessment of the U.S. military's stance… But I forgot about Israel.

-I'm not quite sure why they recently equipped half of their F-15's and F-16's with long-range belly-tanks.

-And I'm not sure why they keep saying that a nuclear Iran is not a possibility. (Which is what our President is saying. Over and over and over again.)

-But I am pretty sure they feel comfortable with a sitting U.S. President who is strongly allied with their interests. And I'm guessing they're not quite sure the situation will be the same in two years. The reason I say this is by all practical assessments Iran will be nuclear within 5 years. So if the next sitting U.S. President was not as sympathetic to their interests as GW is, they might have some sort of window in mind.

-Then there is the whole issue of Hezbollah, and I'm guessing that if the blood flow from Iran to Syria was cut off, they'd have to feel pretty good about their chances against an unsupported Syria.

-And I think "any" sectarian strife in the Mid-East, is a gain for the Israeli's war plan.

But like I said, it's a possibly an outdated assessment. And considering that I couldn't figure out why my Company was playing war games in the sand dunes of Yuma in early 1990, I'm not completely confident in my ability to figure out what's really going on. But I do know this: to win a decisive battle in the ME, our estimated number of killed enemy combatants is around 1,000,000. To accomplish this, we would need a sustained force of close to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers over a 5-10 year period. And that number exceeds voluntary enlistment.

[cambraceres]

So what is your backdrop?

Where did your education on military affairs happen?

And as an aside, a good friend of mine just rturned from visiting family in Iran, and the photos he had on his phone were alarming. So he was in Tehran, and there was snow everywhere, that was weird to me. True it is just naivete, but still. Second, there were really nice restaurants, public transportation, and all the people captured in his shots were nicely dressed in western-like clothes.

He may have just been chillin in a tourist area though.

Cam

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do know this: to win a decisive battle in the ME, our estimated number of killed enemy combatants is around 1,000,000. To accomplish this, we would need a sustained force of close to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers over a 5-10 year period. And that number exceeds voluntary enlistment.


[/ QUOTE ]

indigenous forces. don't forgot about them.

Stu

[Knockwurst]

While you raise some interesting points, which are in line with what some investigative reporters like Sy Hersh have reported about our intentions concerning Iran. I have to take exception with the following:

[ QUOTE ]
all practical assessments Iran will be nuclear within 5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most assessments I've read say its closer to 10 years.

[ QUOTE ]
-Then there is the whole issue of Hezbollah, and I'm guessing that if the blood flow from Iran to Syria was cut off, they'd have to feel pretty good about their chances against an unsupported Syria.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what cutting off the blood flow from Iran to Syria means.

[ QUOTE ]
But I do know this: to win a decisive battle in the ME, our estimated number of killed enemy combatants is around 1,000,000. To accomplish this, we would need a sustained force of close to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers over a 5-10 year period. And that number exceeds voluntary enlistment.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does winning a decisive battle mean? Toppling the governments of Iran and Syria through invasion and occupation and installing a pro-Western government? Do you honestly think that's possible, especially after seeing how we handled matters in Iraq. Not to mention the effect it would have on the pro-western governments in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
-I'm not quite sure why they recently equipped half of their F-15's and F-16's with long-range belly-tanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
This probably has something to do with the new F-35 Lightning II that's slated to replace the bulk of the military's aircraft beginning in 2011, including the USAF F-16, the USMC Harrier and F/A-18 Hornet, and the USN F/A-18 Hornets.

Wiki - F-35 Lightning II

I can't find the article again, but I just read somewhere that the military has ordered 2,000 of these new jets from Lockheed Martin. The RAF is also going to be replacing their Harriers with the same. Hope ya'll bought up some Lockheed Martin stock.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To win a decisive battle in the ME, our estimated number of killed enemy combatants is around 1,000,000. To accomplish this, we would need a sustained force of close to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers over a 5-10 year period.


[/ QUOTE ]

indigenous forces. don't forget about them.



[/ QUOTE ]Who do you have in mind ? Surely not the Israelis.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you have in mind ? Surely not the Israelis

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraqis and Afghanis. But some will say scoff at the Iraqi's being able or willing to fight given that they will not step up in their own country.

Assume the real reason we invaded Iraq was to have massive amounts of troops stationed near Iran. Do you really think we would actually ever declare the Iraqi army fit to handle to security of their country? If we did what happens to the US troops stationed in Iraq? Answer, they all come home;which is counter productive to the purpose we put them there in the first place. The Iraqi army will never be declared fit to handle the security of thier own country as long as the US forces stationed in Iraq are on the table to be possibly used against Iran.

On a side note, I think China's anti-satellite missle test has quite a lot to do with the situation in Iran.

Stu

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Iraqis and Afghanis. But some will say scoff at the Iraqi's being able or willing to fight given that they will not step up in their own country

[/ QUOTE ]

their country? The Iraqi's don't exist as a cultural or ethnic group, they were forced under the same flag by the allies after WW1 and ruled over by a corrupt and semi brutal (when compared to what was to come) "monarchy". they (violently) transitioned to a different dictator who held the "country" together by force until another outside power came in and tried to instate a new rule of law, again by force. The only "national identity" that the Iraqi's have is that the best way to get into power is to use violence.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
their country? The Iraqi's don't exist as a cultural or ethnic group, they were forced under the same flag by the allies after WW1 and ruled over by a corrupt and semi brutal (when compared to what was to come) "monarchy". they (violently) transitioned to a different dictator who held the "country" together by force until another outside power came in and tried to instate a new rule of law, again by force. The only "national identity" that the Iraqi's have is that the best way to get into power is to use violence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your advocating carving the country up, I agree with you. I thought we were talking about the reality or what could be the reality of the situation though.

Stu

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
What does winning a decisive battle mean? Toppling the governments of Iran and Syria through invasion and occupation and installing a pro-Western government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the bolded part would satisfy the definition of winning from a military perspective.