Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Boots on the ground aren't needed nor do we need, as some fringe loons suggest, to turn parts of Iran (or Syria or SA) into a glowing glass parking lot.

Why is that some always have to peg every argument to the extreme end of the dial every single time?

Surgical strikes on select targets in Iran is what we're talking about, no boots/nukes needed.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 8, 2007 12:50 PM

Oh and Rand, about the title of this thread. With respect to Iran talk of "winning" may be the getting the cart before the horse, to win the war with Iran we have to actually begin fighting back. I've seen little to indicate we're there yet.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 8, 2007 12:56 PM

Jane Bernstein gets it exactly right, IMHO:

A friend in the air force said something along the lines of "you can turn the board over and clear every piece with air power, but you can't get a checkmate."

Suppose we do bunker bust that centrifuge facility in Iran.

Without a checkmate "on the ground" we could be in the same boat five years from now after they re-build that facility with new leaders in Washington for the next round. Or outrage within the Muslim world might lead to Pakistan simply selling Iran a nuclear weapon, or three.

Also, it appears there is a good chance that non-nuclear bunker busters will not get the job done meaning we must accept the political ramifications of nuclear first use against a suspected facility, if we attempt the airpower only option.

(Me? I'd wargame whether we could land the 101st Airborne dead on top of that facility for a two week smash and grab mission before I'd support nuclear first use.)

To return to Jane's chess analogy. I see Iran offering a gambit or a sacrifice here. The nuclear program is a deliberate provocation by Iran and the question is do we grab the offered sacrifice?

I am certain the mullahs have a psy-ops and insurgency and terror and political campaign all ready to go if we "nuke" first. With pictures of dead Iranian children on the news, outrage at terror "retaliation" will be muted.

Not fair, but a realistic assessment, IMHO.

Also, they would be pleased beyond measure to actually get the A-bomb.

Heads they win and tails we lose.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 01:05 PM

Cecil, I have read reports that Iran has had Russian assistance in building underground facilities designed to withstand conventional (and small atomic?) attack.

Think Cheyenne Mountain.

Concrete poured in a upside down vee for example with well engineerd void spaces will direct blast waves around protected locations.

Also, without boots on the ground how do we do bomb damage assessments? The mullahs announce: "Drats, you busted our centrifuges, we give up our nuclear ambitions!"

Then, how do we know they are telling the truth?

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 01:09 PM

Without a checkmate "on the ground" we could be in the same boat five years from now after they re-build that facility with new leaders in Washington for the next round.

Five years is five years, Bill. To read your post, we might as well just throw up our hands and let them get nukes.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2007 01:16 PM

PS - - Remember Hans Blix and UN inspections looking for Iraqi WMD?

We bunker bust the centrifuge facility and Iran says "Uncle" -- we say "Prove it" -- and the UN appoints Hans Blix to drive around Iran looking for suspected facilities. Does anyone like that idea?

Air power only failed to stop Saddam's WMD program (or so the official Bush line went) so why would it work this time?

Of course, the truth is Saddam did not actually have a WMD program in part because of 10 years of sanctions.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 01:17 PM

Rand, we need a credible regime change program -- not a fantasy program (and then "the people" rise up. Bay of Pigs?)

Flooding Iran with western consumer goods and the internet and all the benefits of being part of the 21st century globalized world offers an alternative to living in the 13th century with people forced to wear veils.

But when the Great Satan is right next door and rattles sabers, I assert that people in Iran are more worried that the US might do to Tehran what the IDF did in Lebanon last summer (bomb the bleep out of infrastructure) than what new gadget they should purchase.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 01:22 PM

I'm surprised that everyone is talking about this Iranian war as a separate "war". How is it NOT connected to the morons we are already fighting.

If we march into Iran from the bases we already have, we cut off two huge borders that are currently being used to supply and deploy insurgents. We hold Iraq and Afghanistan, USE THEM. Pinch the Persian Islamofascists in the middle. Deny them the ability to move freely into and out of their country. If the Iranian and Iraqi armies were unable to fight each other off during 8 years of war, can the Iranian Army be any better than the wretches we over ran in Iraq? Or will the MSM build them up to be a superior force too, now?

Posted by Steve at January 8, 2007 01:25 PM

If I was an anti-American dictator I'd work to purchase a nuke or two *before* starting my nuke program or making any comments about it. Then you can surprise everyone with a nuke test if the time seems right, or you can blow one up in an enemies territory and be off the hook because the CIA says you're still a few years away.

Than again if I was an anti-American dictator I'd become friends with the Americans and get their support to take out any anti-American neighbors (or to act as peacekeepers after the Americans had taken over the nation).

Posted by rjschwarz at January 8, 2007 01:37 PM

No one said it would be easy to do Bill, are you saying it isn't worthwhile even trying?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 8, 2007 01:45 PM

It's not the invasion of Iraq that required so many troops and cost so many lives, nor even the occupation of territory; it's the occupation of *populated* territory. You don't know who or how many in the crowd are the enemy, and you can't kill the whole crowd.

If it's clear that Iran is "breaking" Iraq and killing US troops, then Iran should pay reparations. Again, "You break it, you bought it."

To that end you can use a whole lot less troops, and lose a whole lot less lives, if you only occupy the oil fields.

Posted by Roger Strong at January 8, 2007 01:51 PM

Cecil, let's review the goalposts.

This began with an "airpower only" argument and I was saying we would need infantry (okay I will modify to modern infantry with helos, Abrams, and the ability to call in F-18 JDAM strikes - a total force package) and I never advocated using infantry without our best force multipliers.

Recall that I said I would advocate consideration of dropping the 101st Airborne on top of that centrifuge facility for an extended smash and grab. But again, paratroopers are elite infantry.

The open question is "Do we have sufficient infantry to sustain a win over Iran?" Recall that in 2004 John Kerry advocated a larger Army.

= = =

Long term, to prevail against nut-job Islam we need to win a meme-war. And since the 21st century is such a much better place to live than the 13th century, it should not be that difficult.

Of course, if we smash their infrastructure and make them eat dirt in the dark the 21st century is not an available option for them to choose.

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 02:02 PM

> I assert that people in Iran are more worried that the US might do to Tehran what the IDF did in Lebanon last summer (bomb the bleep out of infrastructure) than what new gadget they should purchase.

It's not clear that the Lebanese view last summer's war as a defeat. Sure, some of their stuff got blown up, but they might well think that they came out on top.

Hezbollah certainly does.

Posted by Andy Freeman at January 8, 2007 02:30 PM

It's not clear that the Lebanese view last summer's war as a defeat. Sure, some of their stuff got blown up, but they might well think that they came out on top.

Hezbollah certainly does.

I don't think that non-Hezbollah Lebanese think they "won" last summer. And Hezbollah claims that they think they did, but it's not clear whether or not they really believe it. Remember when Nazrallah said that if he'd realized what Israel's reaction would be to the kidnapped soldiers, he wouldn't have done it? Doesn't sound like someone who thinks he won, to me.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 8, 2007 02:35 PM

Keep in mind that it only took us about two weeks to win against Iraq for all intents and purposes. I have no doubt we could take down Iran in a similarly short time. Do we have enough boots to occupy and try and reconstruct Iran to something we prefer? Probably not.

Posted by taoist at January 8, 2007 02:41 PM

How about this idea: We take over Iran's oil fields (at elast the best ones), and leave the rest alone. Then we have an open border but if you come in, you agree to follow US laws and customs. Iran loses all their income, the US gets reparations for the damage the war has done to its economy, and in the long term all Iranians that want a western lifestyle are free to choose it - they just aren't free to choose it and sharia at the same time.

Why is appropriating the oil fields a bad idea? Why no blood for oil? It seems to me that if you take away the oil, the problem goes away.

(Not to mention that as soon as you do that every oil producing nation in the world backs off the retoric again. Noone risks there own checkbook.)

Posted by David Summers at January 8, 2007 02:59 PM

The 101st has about transitioned from the silk to the rotary wing.

Posted by D Anghelone at January 8, 2007 03:16 PM

Ah, David Summers proposes the Khuzetan Gambit

If we handled that with skillful deft diplomacy, it might work.

But I assert the Khuzetan Gambit would work better if we accepted a popular Iraqi Shia Arab nationalist such as al-Sadr as our ally in such a venture. Create a greater Shia Sumer and a Kurdistan and let the Sunni Baath wither.

Are "we" willing to do that?

And yes, we would need more infantry to do that.

... smile ...

Posted by Bill White at January 8, 2007 03:18 PM

listening to Simberg and his friends argue for
a massive strike or invasion of iran, must in some
way sound like the discussions in The Fuhrerbunker
as the wehrmacht was grinding it's way through
yugoslavia.

Mein Herr: We plowed through France in 11 days,
why is it talking a month to go through such a filthy country
as yugoslavia.

Yes my liebkin, we must use more air power and all of our
clever tactics. It must be these damns commies
aiding tito and his men. If we must go to moscow to
beat Stalin, we will go to moscow.

Seriously, can any of you chickenhawks find anyone with
a military flag who advocates going to Iran?
A country twice Iraq's size with twice the population?
Iraq took 6 weeks of combat, Iran will be significantly
harder and our lines of supply are all in Indian country.
Driving convoys 700 miles through iraq, with minimal
convoy support, and all of Sadr's angry shiite militia
hanging around?

Posted by anonymous at January 8, 2007 05:40 PM

"argue for a massive strike or invasion of iran"

You are hallucinating, step away from the bong.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at January 8, 2007 07:43 PM

We can just blockade the border like the Israelis do Palestine, and have the navy and those really cool army Predator UAVs shoot everything that is both larger than a toyota corolla and moves.

Shouldn't cost more than a couple billion a month, and either the Iranian people will overthrow their nutball fundamentalist government to stop the nightmare and/or the economy will completely collapse into the stoneage within a couple of years. Either way they lose the nuclear capability.

Posted by Adrasteia at January 9, 2007 03:47 AM

I like the UAV idea. Let everyone on both sides of the border know that crossing will cause a quick death. If you find crossers, kill 'em quickly with the UAV, end of game. (for them anyway)

Posted by Steve at January 9, 2007 06:04 AM

As usual, White stays on-track just long enough to find some place to run off into the weeds.

If we seize the oil fields, we should ignore the Shite and Sunni populations. Without the oil revenue and with the people, they'll get to choose between being beggars (like the Palestinians) or "make the desert bloom" successes like the Israelis. However, unlike the Palestinians, they won't have near-by infidels to fight. So, either way, they cease to be a problem that concerns us.

Yes, we help the Kurds go independent. They're not insane.

Posted by Andy Freeman at January 9, 2007 08:43 AM

> Also, without boots on the ground how do we do bomb damage assessments?

You've never heard of aerial reconnaissance? Or satellites?

Posted by at January 9, 2007 06:04 PM

freeman

so we help the kurds become independent, what about
the Turks?

Posted by anonymous at January 9, 2007 09:17 PM

Yeah those Israeli UAV's sure do a great job on policing the border
of the GAZA. Sure stops the Hamas guys from rocketing israel.

Posted by anonymous at January 10, 2007 04:36 PM

simberg

Do you think the Isaraeli's planned to lose in Lebanon this summer?

Posted by anonymous at January 10, 2007 04:37 PM

Post a comment