can't wake up
Woah, great advice there, MacArthur.Militarily we need to lay the smackdown on the rebel groups and any of their supporters, politicians included.
or bust.
MacArthur would've at least kept the Baathists who knew what they were doing around. It still staggers me how little the planners behind this learned from the Marshall Plan, unless they expected to find the same kind of response and lack of resistance from the general populace. High school kids will be writing essays comparing those two plans for a long time.Originally Posted by diffusionx
I've never read about any American involvement in that part of his life.
-Kyo
For you are in Elysium...
can't wake up
There were planners for this war?
People are in too much of a hurry for this war to end. Vietnam lasted for ten years, AR eight, & WWII six. They need to just give it some time. I mean it's only been three years and we haven't even invaded Iran yet!
Bush and his staff aren't stupid, they know what's going on, and everthings falling right in to place for the big finale as they envisioned it. We just can't see it & they can't tell us becuse we wouldn't understand.
*insert witty remark here*
I agree with this statement.
or bust.
Sort of. They relied on strategists who told them any type of guerilla resistance would be impossible in an open desert environment, and were too willing to believe Chalabi & INA types who told them they'd be welcomed with open arms by repressed shiites.
Unfortunately, they also flattened much of the south in the invasion and made the critical error of defending the oil infrastructure instead of patrolling townships (they really needed enough manpower to do both) and disbanded the military creating groups of disaffected fighters with nothing to lose. While the coalition finished off the Baathists in the north, Al Sadr and others used this disaffection to foment resistance within the Shiite community.
In hindsight, the postwar peace may have been unwinnable unless there was the political will to throw a half million men at policing the country. It's impossible to get people to go along with you if you stay in your bases while the Al Zarqawis are threatening them the moment you leave. Unfortunately the Coalition thought they could use the Iraqi police for this task, but they ended up being neither as effective nor loyal as expected.
Bush won't invade Iran. If you think Iraq's been tough, you ain't seen nothing yet. Iran is a larger, more ethnicially and culturally unified, more modern nation with a standing army 5x the size of Iraq's and a mountainous terrain that would make fighting difficult. If diplomacy fails - or they just give up on it - expect US airstrikes against suspected nuclear sites. Russia and China would likely veto any UN Security Council action. But there just isn't the available money, manpower or political will for a full-scale invasion of Iran in the US right now (imo).
-Kyo
Nordic Warrior
A lot of it to do with France being in opposition to it and many other countries not having well trained militaries for such a war. If Germany and France had something to gain they wouldn't have any problem with it, it has nothing to do with the "right or wrong". It doesn't make it anymore right for us but George Bush (or at the very least, the Bush Adminstration) isn't the only corrupt politician in the world.
I had a lot of guys I used to be friends with end up over in the war but I don't know what happened to any of them with the exception of one or two. If the US stays for another 10-20 years maybe they really can accomplish their mission but we can't exactly just pick up and leave as we sort of opened Pandora's Box here.
The USMC already has a worked out plan to send one of their MEU's in and blow all the nuclear stuff up if worst comes to worst I believe.
I don't really think an invasion of Iran would be that much larger of deal coupled with Iraq, it might strenghten terrorist factions from other countries a little bit but a lot of the bad guys wouldn't become anymore bad I wouldn't think. I went to highschool with a guy from Iran and he gave me his families address before I graduated (as I was going into the Marines) and told me to visit them when the US invaded Iran, I think a lot of people there don't think it's far-fetched for the US to come and kick out their government. Who knows, it could really piss a lot of Iranian nationals off though, the best bet would be to fund a revolution movement led by the countries youth.
On a military level though, Iran's standing army 5 times bigger then Iraq's really doesn't mean a thing. There's not a standing army on the planet that could stand-up to the US with out a lot of support, it's the guerilla wars that are the big problems. Any real military power Iran had was cut short when Saddam's armored brigades inflicted a lot of damage to their military (and we saw what the US did to them in 1991).
With all that said, if the US was going to invade Iran I think it would only be a good idea if the UN Security Council approved it (which they won't). Getting into another war virtually by ourselves isn't going to make the situation in Iraq any better.
or bust.
There are at least 6 suspected hardened nuclear sites, a few hidden in mountainsides. It wouldn't be that easy.
Ironically, Iranians are the nicest people you'll ever meet. They're flat-out laid back. You likely won't see a rebellion any time soon - there are certainly those willing, but there's no organization, no leadership, and the government's been too good at cracking down on dissidents. Also, the current president was quite legitimately popularly elected, and he's taken charge over the Mullahs.I don't really think an invasion of Iran would be that much larger of deal coupled with Iraq, it might strenghten terrorist factions from other countries a little bit but a lot of the bad guys wouldn't become anymore bad I wouldn't think. I went to highschool with a guy from Iran and he gave me his families address before I graduated (as I was going into the Marines) and told me to visit them when the US invaded Iran, I think a lot of people there don't think it's far-fetched for the US to come and kick out their government. Who knows, it could really piss a lot of Iranian nationals off though, the best bet would be to fund a revolution movement led by the countries youth.
On a military level though, Iran's standing army 5 times bigger then Iraq's really doesn't mean a thing. There's not a standing army on the planet that could stand-up to the US with out a lot of support, it's the guerilla wars that are the big problems. Any real military power Iran had was cut short when Saddam's armored brigades inflicted a lot of damage to their military (and we saw what the US did to them in 1991).
Iran's military has most certainly recovered from their war 18 years ago - billions of dollars come out of the ground of that country a year, and they have the Russians and Chinese offering military support and equipment in exchange for oil.
The Iranian standing army is currently estimated at around 60 000 men, a number which would greatly increase were the country to be invaded. By contrast, the US currently has 130 000 men in Iraq. They'd have a very difficult time coming up with the manpower to beat the Iranians right now, never mind holding the country. Could they win? Based solely on technology, sure, but they'd then be in charge of two messes in the middle east with half the troops, and casualties would be much more serious than the 2100 men they've lost so far.
Last edited by StriderKyo; 21 Mar 2006 at 12:36 AM.
-Kyo
Nordic Warrior
That's a given, but I was talking more on conventional warfare terms because it seems that's kind've what was suggested. Guerilla's can deal a lot of damage without having a lot of tech and that's why there's so many troops in Iraq right now. In conventional terms, planes, infantry battles, tanks, etc, etc. Iran would be done in less then a week but when you're talking about all the bad-guys running off to the hills and making bombs it becomes a little more difficult then that.
I suppose if worst truly came to worst the US could land a few hundred thousand troops in Iran, destroy the conventional military and government and pack up and go home and hope for the best in the aftermath but that would probably result in more problems then us getting involved in another long-term war.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks