Egypt

[Partha]

I'll repeat my question that you couldn't answer above. Try making a stab at it this time, Herr General.

While we're at it, Shinseki lost his job pre-Iraq for telling BushCo that you would need several hundred thousand troops to keep order in Iraq - which turned out to be absolutely correct. How many do you think you need to garrison a country over 600,000 square miles with double the population of Iraq? Where you getting them at?

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think its necessary to garrison the country in order to neutralize it. Why do you think we need to, Zerg Commander?

[Ddrak]

The US could absolutely steamroller Iran in about a week, much like Desert Storm steamrollered Iraq. Probably face higher losses, but not significant.

The problem is this wouldn't "neutralize" the country. Assymetric warfare would kick in and Iran has plenty of capacity to cause massive economic damage to the US with relatively little outlay itself. You'd have to commit a serious portion of the navy to patrolling the Persian Gulf ensuring oil could flow, would have to commit a serious portion of the armed forces protecting oil pipelines across the area, etc. The US would have to protect every strategic trade route while Iran could target only the weak spots.

End story is the US can win any early 20th-century style war hands down, and promptly lose a 21st century conflict in the aftermath.

Iran's casualty count in the Iran/Iraq war exceeded a million. I think your estimates on their available troop numbers are significantly low.

Dd

[Kulaf]

So you are assuming the rest of the world just let's Iran play havoc with the world's oil supply? Not to mention how Iran is going to sustain itself economically when it cannot sell it's own oil. 80% of Iranian exports are oil and petroleum based products.

[Ddrak]

No. I'm assuming the following:

i) Iran has a whole bunch of spoilers planned for any invasion. It's fairly clear their first act on any invasion will be to mine Hormuz and as much of the Persian Gulf as they can, alone with a broad based missile attack on shipping in the gulf. Doesn't matter what the rest of the world is willing to do - it's a straight up spoil that requires no maintenance. Once the mines are there, the tankers stop.

ii) In Embar's scenario, Iran collapses politically and economically so any idea of it selling its own oil is moot. It reverts to "the most vicious tribal/religious leader wins", and with it blatantly obvious to every resident that the US caused the problem, there's no shortage of people willing to suicide bomb whatever US civilian target they get pointed at.

iii) You know have one of the richer oil producing nations in anarchy. Oil companies will be all over that shit like flies on a corpse with PMCs flooding the area, killing whoever tries to stop them and enhancing the hatred of everything "western".

Probablistically: Once the first few terrorists start coming into the US and causing mayhem, national security costs raise another order of magnitude from where they are today. The economy takes itself into the shitter and China emerges as the preeminent economic and military force after a decade. You then have to choose whether to go to war with China to prevent this.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I've said it before and I will say it again......if you think America is beyond its own form of zealotry, you are making a mistake. Should Iran "as a country and a people" decide to do what you suggest........then everyone in Iran is a target. There will be calls to carpet bomb the entire country or nuke it into the stone ages.

It's a rediculous arguement because it is a no win scenario for both sides. I think we can all agree that no matter what......Iran ends up losing the most. China also ends up losing the US as an importer, and cheap Iranian oil.

[Ddrak]

That's exactly my point - it's significantly no-win on all sides.

Dd

[Partha]

No. I'm assuming the following:

i) Iran has a whole bunch of spoilers planned for any invasion. It's fairly clear their first act on any invasion will be to mine Hormuz and as much of the Persian Gulf as they can, alone with a broad based missile attack on shipping in the gulf. Doesn't matter what the rest of the world is willing to do - it's a straight up spoil that requires no maintenance. Once the mines are there, the tankers stop.

ii) In Embar's scenario, Iran collapses politically and economically so any idea of it selling its own oil is moot. It reverts to "the most vicious tribal/religious leader wins", and with it blatantly obvious to every resident that the US caused the problem, there's no shortage of people willing to suicide bomb whatever US civilian target they get pointed at.

iii) You know have one of the richer oil producing nations in anarchy. Oil companies will be all over that shit like flies on a corpse with PMCs flooding the area, killing whoever tries to stop them and enhancing the hatred of everything "western".

Not to mention what will happen to the price of oil and the global recession that would follow. They already jack the price up every time an Angolan worker gets a fart crosswise, now imagine if Iran stops producing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/con ... l-military

I think my estimate on Iran's military numbers are pretty close to other estimates.

Although I agree Iran and other elements would wage asymmetric warfare on the US should we enter into direct conflict with them, I'd point out its happening already. Maybe it would happen more, maybe not. However, since asymmetric warfare is only disruptive at best, stock markets will adjust and people will get used to it. Taking out the military capability and destroying civilian infrastructure of Iran will do much more than merely disrupt the occasional tanker or pipeline, or blow up the occasional group of people.

And if elements of the radical Islamists go after really soft targets here, like schools, I think you'll see American views towards that whole region change in a heartbeat. Americans will give carte blanche to the military and expect them to root out and destroy anything that even smells of radical Islamism. The US will go it alone if needed in that scenario.

We have over 700 billion barrels in the Strategic Oil Reserve. There's close to a trillion more in technically recoverable oil. If we had to, we could rely on those reserves and do without mid east oil. We have enormous reserves of natural gas as well. We are seeing conversion of large vehicles like buses and garbage trucks converted to NG now, without access to mid east oil, we'd see more of that, and an acceleration towards conversion. Not to mention solar energy might just become competitive.

Sometimes I think we're over there not so much for our access to the oil, but for the sake of other countries and their access, so the US can keep world economies stabilized. We certainly could do without it if we wanted.

[Ddrak]

My count on that page is just over 1 million men, with access to 10 million more. That's markedly different to your statement of ~300k, and a markedly different force composition.

You're still thinking in a conventional sense, because determined assymetric warfare has won every conflict it's been involved in from Vietnam to Iraq. A conventional force simply cannot establish an RoE to cover it that doesn't completely violate their mission.

Are you suggesting the broader US population will happily send troops to murder every woman and child in Iran? Are you suggesting the rest of the world would let you? Are you suggesting it's even economically viable?

Yes, the stock market would adjust. At least an order of magnitude down. With the resultant breakdown of the basic fabric of society caused by such a dramatic collapse of an economy.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

My count on that page is just over 1 million men, with access to 10 million more. That's markedly different to your statement of ~300k, and a markedly different force composition.

You're still thinking in a conventional sense, because determined assymetric warfare has won every conflict it's been involved in from Vietnam to Iraq. A conventional force simply cannot establish an RoE to cover it that doesn't completely violate their mission.

Are you suggesting the broader US population will happily send troops to murder every woman and child in Iran? Are you suggesting the rest of the world would let you? Are you suggesting it's even economically viable?

Yes, the stock market would adjust. At least an order of magnitude down. With the resultant breakdown of the basic fabric of society caused by such a dramatic collapse of an economy.

Dd

You need to re-read my post. I have total Iranian forces, including militia, regular military, and Guard, well over the 300K you think I postulated.

Determined asymmetric warfare still requires resources. For simplistic purposes, that means physical terrorist attacks with bombs, bullets and chemicals (including nuclear dirty bombs), and non-physical IT infrastructure attacks. The IT attacks are more damaging than the physical ones. The US can clamp down on both, given the collective will of the tax base. But we can address it, given the electorates will. Eliminate AW? No. Render it nothing more than a nuisance, yes.

Asymmetric warfare has been successful, but not in every case. Israel still stands, despite both symmetric and asymmetric attacks from its inception throughout today. The cold war was won by the US. The IRA, who waged an asymmetric war against the Brits resulted in what I would call a draw. Your blanket presentation of AS trumping all is simply not true.

And where do you conflate killing every man woman and child with rooting out Islamist extremism? C'mon, you'r not known for over the top hyperbole, but you're engaging in it now. That said, I think Americans would certainly accept collateralized civilian losses on the Iranian side, even women and children, if Islamist extremists attacked soft targets such as schools. I also have enough faith in our military that they would minimize those losses to the extent they are capable, and I think most Americans would share that thought. We give our military a large latitude, because we believe they will act in what Americans believe as honorable warfare, even if our enemies don't.

Would the world stand for it? I don't see why not. They certainly don't want to do anything in Iran, do you think they want to engage themselves in Iran AND the US? Are you daft?

Your predictions of the stock market losing 90% of its value are just asinine. We engaged in conflict with Iraq, twice, and the stock market took a hit but not by the margins you are suggesting. And it recovered. The bigger hit to the market was driven by US based securities in the mortgage backed derivatives market. Your statement illustrates how little you understand about American trading markets.

[Kulaf]

You're still thinking in a conventional sense, because determined assymetric warfare has won every conflict it's been involved in from Vietnam to Iraq. A conventional force simply cannot establish an RoE to cover it that doesn't completely violate their mission.

That entirely depends on the mission. A complete pacification mission is not effected by it because you match brutality with brutality x10. It worked wonders for Rome and the Monguls. You attack us......we kill your entire village, salt your fields, destroy your livestock until you learn not to attack us or are all dead.

It's the same reason why I dissagree with Ghandi's assertion that non-violence can win any struggle. It's simply not the truth. It works great against civilized people, like the US and the UK where it was used. But against totalitarianism, it will fail miserably.

The notion that war (the most brutal expression of human bahavior) should be fought with rules is still quite a modern concept. When it comes down to brass tacks......countries/people are going to do whatever it takes to survive or punish agressors.

[Ddrak]

You need to re-read my post. I have total Iranian forces, including militia, regular military, and Guard, well over the 300K you think I postulated.

Yeah - sorry. You were just very low on the Basij force (100k vs 1-11m).

Determined asymmetric warfare still requires resources. For simplistic purposes, that means physical terrorist attacks with bombs, bullets and chemicals (including nuclear dirty bombs), and non-physical IT infrastructure attacks. The IT attacks are more damaging than the physical ones. The US can clamp down on both, given the collective will of the tax base. But we can address it, given the electorates will. Eliminate AW? No. Render it nothing more than a nuisance, yes.

Asymmetric warfare has been successful, but not in every case. Israel still stands, despite both symmetric and asymmetric attacks from its inception throughout today. The cold war was won by the US. The IRA, who waged an asymmetric war against the Brits resulted in what I would call a draw. Your blanket presentation of AS trumping all is simply not true.

Asymmetric warfare costs almost nothing in the scheme of things. It's about causing terror and provoking a much more expensive response to the point where the enemy just gives up and leaves. It's *not* about defeating the opposition but forcing them to disengage despite having overwhelming conventional power. This has absolutely worked in every case you mention - Palestine still stands and the British left Northern Ireland. Israel and the UK both paid significantly more to police those troubles conventionally than it cost the opponent.

And where do you conflate killing every man woman and child with rooting out Islamist extremism? C'mon, you'r not known for over the top hyperbole, but you're engaging in it now. That said, I think Americans would certainly accept collateralized civilian losses on the Iranian side, even women and children, if Islamist extremists attacked soft targets such as schools. I also have enough faith in our military that they would minimize those losses to the extent they are capable, and I think most Americans would share that thought. We give our military a large latitude, because we believe they will act in what Americans believe as honorable warfare, even if our enemies don't.

Please define the difference between an extremist and a non-extremist. Once you've done that, explain in terms of RoE that won't get troops killed trying to figure out if the guys in that house are good guys or bad guys. Once you've done that, re-evaluate who are the extremists again once you've had a well armed invader kill someone's brother/son/father/friend.

Remember, once you've destroyed a nation's economy, you've created millions of people with nothing to live for and every reason to hate you. Congratulations - you've created your own extremists that will be replaced as you kill them, until you kill every man, woman and child.

I mean, look how well the Brits went targeting the PIRA. Simple right, just kill the extremists and leave? Worked well...

Would the world stand for it? I don't see why not. They certainly don't want to do anything in Iran, do you think they want to engage themselves in Iran AND the US? Are you daft?

No, I'm not daft, but your strategy has genocide as the only viable outcome (as Kulaf has rightly assessed). The world doesn't stand for that shit no matter who you think you are. In fact, the general population won't stand for it either because you can be sure images of troops killing unarmed women and children will find their way out faster than you can blink.

Your predictions of the stock market losing 90% of its value are just asinine. We engaged in conflict with Iraq, twice, and the stock market took a hit but not by the margins you are suggesting. And it recovered. The bigger hit to the market was driven by US based securities in the mortgage backed derivatives market. Your statement illustrates how little you understand about American trading markets.

Iraq is not Iran. I have no idea why you'd conflate the two. I also have no idea why the GFC was brought into this. We're talking about a nation trying to deliberately bankrupt itself by either (a) creating a whole nation of terrorists bent on revenge and then leaving them to their own devices, or (b) making itself the pariah of the world by entering into carefully planned genocide.

Dd