This is what Jim Dunnigan's FYEO is saying about Active force retention:

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htlead.htm

February 16, 2004: Despite the media stories about troops dismayed by overseas service or combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, all the services (active duty and reserve) are suffering from the problem of too many people wanting to join, or stay in. This doesn't get much publicity, but it's a very real problem, because the number of people each service can have on the payroll is set by law. If the limit is exceeded, you have to get permission from Congress, and then find the money to pay and maintain the additional troops. It's rare for there to be too many people. But since September 11, 2001, a combination of recession (which always attracts more recruits to the military) and patriotism (which is usually underestimated by the media) has brought in more people than the armed services are allowed to have.

Andrew,

I meant to send this with my original "I told you so" to Joe and A.L., because it is so deliciously ironic and a testimate to our impending victory in the Iraqi mop-up campaign.

I just wish someone was playing the theme from the TV show COPS while this was going on:

New York Times
February 20, 2004

The Iraqi Police Get To Confront An Old Boss

By Neela Banerjee

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/international/middleeast/20ZIMA.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 19 — A bad day is when (1) you get arrested (2) by the people who once worked for you and (3) they tell you exactly what they think of you.

As a french-iranian (hey, don't shoot yet, i WAS and AM supporting the irqi liberation war!!), i 'd like to clear a few points:
Iranian are ,in general, as strange as it may seem, PRO-US, much more than pro-european ,whom they consider contract-hungry compromisers.
On 9-11, the pnly place in the middle-east where people tok the streets with candles, was,except israel, teheran.
Iranians don't need iraqi style liberation.Strong stance against mullahs, and encouragement words, very much as president bush is doing, will suffice , probably, to generate a milosevic style ousting, or a kind of mini-revolution.
In many ways Iran liberation will be much much easier.

Herve, we've been covering Iran in-depth for a while, and we will continue to do so with help from our new Iranian team member Hoder.

Many Iranians around the world look forward to the day when their homeland will truly be free - and so do we.

Herve'

America is not going to liberate Iran because it loves Persians.

It is going to conquer a nutball Mullahocracy because it is a threat to the American homeland because it is
a) giving sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and
b) building nukes.

Giving oppressed nations their freedom is America's strategy to make sure it never has to come back and do the job over.

I could go on about as to the reasons why this will happen, but I prefer to quote Tom Holsinger's reader response he got published over on WSJ On-Line:

Reader Responses
Solidarity With Iran
MICHAEL MCFAUL AND ABBAS MILANI

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/responses.html?article_id=110004728

Give Iran the Iraq Treatment
Tom Holsinger - Turlock, Calif.

The best thing we can do for the people of Iran is what we did for the people of Iraq--eliminate its tyrannical regime by conquest and organize a new democratic government. The truly nut ball faction of Iran's theocratic regime has taken over and reversed all sorts of policies, starting with al Qaeda, which has new sanctuaries there, replacing the ones lost in Afghanistan, from which to attack us.

I've heard the line about Iran being too big, mountainous and populated for us to take them on. It's a silly argument. Here are a couple of highlights:

Iran is mountainous. That means a totally different kind of fighting. Heavy armor is less effective. You need a lot more infantry and helicopters. We can do this, as we proved in Afghanistan. Operation Anaconda in March 2002 was exactly the kind of large mountainous search and destroy you would expect to see in a campaign in Iran. We kicked ass--against dedicated locals who had (lets face it) better intel. It also showed some vulnerabilities. We lost some choppers and many of the bad guys were able to sneak away.

Of course, even in Iran not everyone lives in mountain caves. There are valleys, cities, ports and airfields. We obviously know how to deal with those things too.

As for Iran being much larger than Iraq, that weighs in our favor, not theirs. We have mobility and air supremacy. We can quickly go where we want, when we want. If they move they die. That played a huge role in Iraq. When the RG tried to move under cloak of sandstorm we tore them to pieces. After that they stayed put--and we tore them to pieces.

Iran has 2.5 times the population of Iraq. So what? Modern firepower is so intense that numbers just don't mean what they used to. When I saw The Patriot (Mel Gibson) one thing that struck me was that, even if you pulled off a perfect ambush, you still needed a lot of men. Ten guys just couldn't lay down enough fire to do any serious damage to, say, a company of 100 guys. That has all changed. In the first Gulf War a Special Forces A Team of 4 guys held off a company of Iraqi regulars for nearly a day until they were extracted. Given how much firepower the US military can bring to bear it's silly to suggest we should fear Iranian human wave attacks. The worst that could come of it would be bad press ala the Gulf War "Highway of Death."

A more significant difference between the Iraq campaign and one in Iran would be bases. Last March we sent everything in from Kuwait. Reminds me of the South Park episode entitled "When an Elephant Makes Love to a Pig." Going into Iran we have land bases on both sides along lengthy borders. We also have sea access.

The biggest challenge in a war with Iran would not be its size, population or conventional forces. Rather it would be Iran's missile and unconventional abilities--of course, that's exactly why this needs to happen sooner rather than later.

My point is that factional disputes among Iran's mullah ruling group have recently resulted in the most extreme faction getting almost total control. I disagree with Michael Ledeen that the leadership has changed its policies. IMO the leadership has changed, and the current dominant faction has implemented the policies it has advocated all along. Those are:

1) Dispense with any sort of free elections on the grounds that "Who Needs 'Em? We'in's got the power! Use that!" It isn't that the nutballs don't understand that force alone can't keep them in power and that their rule needs a veneer of political legitmacy - rather they don't care at all because their nutball state of mind carries with that degree of short-sightedness.

2) Harass the hell out of everyone not like them in Iran over every possible item of cultural looniness, especially female anything but including satellite TV, etc.

3) Build nuclear weapons and any other varieties of WMD possible ASAP.

4) Death to Israel, starting with incitement of Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack across the border.

5) Death to Jews everywhere - help any terrorists anywhere murder any Jews anywhere.

6) Death to America - let Al Qaeda operate secure bases in Iran from which to murder Americans anywhere, including in the U.S.

#6 is all she wrote. We're going to take the mullahs out to protect ourselves at home, not to make Iran nice for Iranians.

The other mullah factions know what is coming and are taking appropriate action:

"... The charge is credible because, as Western governments know well, large quantities of cash — just as in the case of Saddam Hussein — have been moved out of Iran in recent months by friends and relatives of the leading officials."

Michael Ledeen six days ago:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200402181614.asp

Iblis, reading from his Tom Clancy novel and confusing it with real life.

1. In Afghanistan, we had an armed rebel group to work with, and the allegiance to the Taliban of most of the de facto provincial leaders (aka warlords) was merely expedient. Nothing similar in Iran.

2. The military capabilities of the Taliban and Saddam were much inferior to the Iranians'.

3. The small force we used in Afghanistan is concentrating on finding remnant Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, not on reconstruction of the country. Outside Kabul, we've left the country to the pre-existing warlords on condition they no longer permit global terrorists to use them as a base.

4. The 2½ times population difference is not only for the relative difficulty of deposing the government (let us suppose our technology is so wonderful we rush into Teheran, much as I doubt this), but far more importantly, for the task of occupying and reconstructing the country afterwards. (Unless your interest ends with the bang-bang phase?)

5. Is it Afghanistan or Turkmenistan that is the second land border we can use for invasion? Both, and especially the former, would require securing bases from a hostile native populace. You think Karzai is eager to allow his country to be a launching pad for an invasion of Iran (with which his relations are, in fact, not so bad, given shared hatred of the Taliban)?

Shorter Bush/Cheney/Iblis: The Iraq War was good because it showed we're badder dudes than Iraq; all the more so the Iran War.

I'm not sorry that I think neither our political will (conscription? taxes?) nor our military capabilities are up to your vision of the United States as overlord of the entire Middle and Near East.

JPost Confirmation from Shin Bet of #'s 4 & 5:

Shin Bet chief "Dichter, who was appearing before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, singled out Iran as the "No. 1" terror state in the world as far as initiating direct and indirect acts. He said Iranian threat on Israel is "significant" and Iran is becoming "bolder" in its efforts. According to Dichter, Iran is operating a channel via Europe to penetrate its terrorists into Israel.

Iranian terror is also being operated via the Hizbullah, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians, he said.

Syria, on the other hand, is a host country that that allows freedom of movement and operations for terror groups, Dichter told the committee.

Dichter said there is a "worrisome increase" in the number of Israeli Arabs who are being enlisted into Iranian-Hizbullah service. He said Hizbullah is paying thousands of shekels to those who agree to carry out attacks and gives bonuses to those who succeed."

So, Andrew has come out to play...

Let's see, you don't think our "political will ...[or] our military capabilities" are up to the task of a campaign in Iran. That's interesting, because in your earlier post the problem was "Iran has 2½ times the population of Iraq and 4 times the area, much of it mountainous." I stupidly responded to what you had said, rather than what you had clearly meant. Well, you can move the goal posts all you like. I'll play along.

I noticed in your earlier post you mentioned having an Atlas. That's great. Do you have any other sources for your claims? Would you care to share those sources? I'd be particularly interested in sources for the following claim:

"The military capabilities of the Taliban and Saddam were much inferior to the Iranians"

Well, not the Taliban, but certainly Saddam. Saddam's Republican Guards were a fairly modern and professional military force, and much of the reason that Iraq (and not Iran) was considered a regional superpower. They learned their skills in the Iran/Iraq war of the 80's, and while they were no match for US forces in the Gulf War, they stood their ground and fought. Iran, on the other hand, used primarily human wave attacks in the Iran/Iraq war. Having been under US embargo since 1979 (more than 10 years longer than Saddam's Iraq), having imprisoned their pilots and professional military officers after the revolution, having been left with US equipment that they could not get training, parts or ammunition for, they had nothing but the bodies of fanatics. Now Iran has made progress in the last decade, but they are still far from a modern army. Maybe their military strength is more a product of a quasi-religious belief in the prowess of anyone fighting against "American scum" than actual hardware and training?

Yes, the second land border is Afghanistan. No, I don't think there would be any problem putting a couple of US divisions there.

You claim that the Iranians hate us and would resist any US liberation. Yawn. Heard that about Iraq and Afghanistan already. So far no doomsday results, sorry. In any event, I'd sooner take Herve's word on the matter than yours--and he's French! [disclaimer--don't personally know Herve]

The Afghan battle I referred to, Operation Anaconda, is exactly what I said it was: a large scale operation in mountainous terrain. I brought it up as an very recent example of how ridiculous it is to claim that the US cannot operate in Iran (or N. Korea) because of mountains. If you want to talk about US capabilities in mountainous terrain that's fine by me. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about US strategy, operation and goals in Afghanistan then I suggest we take it offline. Focus!

When you speak of a lack of will it's clearly autobiographical. Many of us, on the other hand, with full understanding of what is involved, are keen to finish the job that was begun in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iblis: The United States does not posses the money necessary to launch and maintain an invasion against Iran. The US will be running a budget deficit of half a trillion dollars in 2005 (when troops will conceivably become available for an invasion), without even adding in supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan (which, if last year was an indication, could run at more than 50 billion dollars). The war in Iraq has already cost more than 100 billion dollars. Such spending can barely be sustained now - where do you expect to obtain the money necessary for an even more expensive attack against Iran (remember that Iran actually has a navy capable of mining the Gulf, and clearing the area, along with destroying Iran's submarines, is an expensive proposition. Also note that Iran's military posses enough of a helicopter and SSM force that it will slow the advance of US forces. In fact, Iran's military will be much more expensive to defeat, because there will need to be many more air dropped munitions expended than in Iraq)? Not to mention that helping the people to overthrow the government covertly or with the assistance of special operators is a much more cost effective solution.

Joshua:

You raise some good questions. I'm glad Pres. Bush has plenty of experts to advise him, because I certainly don't have all the answers. Of course, I do have some thoughts on the issues you raise:

1. Money is a real problem. On the other hand, it sounds strange to me to say that Iran is a threat, that it is sponsoring terrorists who are killing Americans, that it is developing nuclear weapons and for all that we'd love to send the troops in to make them stop--but we just don't have the cash. If we are talking about preventing, say, a nuke in Manhattan, then you had better keep me away from the check book.

2. Iran's naval abilities are primarily coastal. They do have mine layers and submarines. They also have coastal anti-ship missile batteries. That's more of an issue when you don't have access to land bases. If you are operating from carriers they have to stay further away, which reduces the number of sorties per carrier per day. In an attack on Iran we would be able to operate from land based airstrips. Our supply lines would also be land based--at least until we had already pushed them back from the boarders and coasts. Once their ports are seized their naval assets don't count for much. Just have to be careful until all the mines are cleared.

3. I don't see how their helicopters make any difference. Anything in Iran that flies won't last long.

4. Iran does have an excellent missile ability. I mentioned that as a potential problem in my first post. I doubt, however, that it poses much of a military threat. We can operate from bases out of their reach. We have a limited ability to intercept missiles. Most importantly, however, would be our speed and air power. If the troops are moving quickly and the Iranians are denied access to the air and thus the ability to watch our movements then hitting our troops becomes really tricky. On the flip side, Special Forces and US air power would be able to deal with the launchers themselves very quickly. Note how limited the missile effect was last March, as compared to the first Gulf War.

On the other hand, Iran could use its missiles as terror weapons and target neighboring cities. All the more reason to do this now before the situation gets worse.

5. JDAMs are cheap. The biggest expense is getting them to the target (i.e. operating the aircraft they are dropped from). Bombs and cruise missiles do cost money, but that's a small part of the whole enterprise. As an argument, it's also a rehashing of your first.

6. Agreed. It would be much, much better to help the Iranians help themselves--and not just for monetary reasons. I would hope that this administration is already doing what it can on this front. Sadly, I don't think it's any more realistic than it was in Iraq last year (though in 1991 it could have worked).

Joshua Harris,

Conquering Iran will be less of a problem than conquering Iraq save, perhaps, for logistics due to inconveniently located mountains. OTOH, our forces are quite familiar with the area's geographic features due to World War Two lend-lease construction needs. Our pre-attack psychological warfare campaign, as well as other softening up processes, haven't begun yet.

War is not static. The strategic environment our forces will operate in after our pre-attack softening up preparations have matured will be much different than currently exists. The new mullah regime hasn't begun to honk off the Iranian population. The Iranian peoples' hostility to their government will soar when the Basiji, etc., try to take away everyone's satellite dishes and VCR's.

25 years ago, a mob of middle-class Parisian housewives tried to lynch the first Culture Minister of then newly elected French President Mitterand's cabinet when he was spotted alone on the street after banning the broadcast of France's most popular TV show - the American Dynasty. A shopkeeper saved the minister's life by letting him in and then slamming down the security grate most Paris stores have for just such eventualities.

Occupying Iran afterwards will be much more of a problem than occupying Iraq. Iran is bigger, far more populated, and more mountainous. OTOH, we'll have a significantly greater amount of active local support, and we won't have to disband Iran's armed forces, so the problem period of our occupation of Iran, and the total occupation period, will be much shorter than in raq.

Trent and I are familiar with both such matters.

Joshua,

The number one job of the Iranian military is too not be a threat to the nutball Mullah's.

Its number two job is to look threatening in parades.

Its number three job is to be able to shoot at mobs of unarmed civilians at a distance with heavy crew served weapons while the Basiji security goons hold AK's to their heads.

I covered the structure and performance of 3rd world militaries like the Iranians in my post

The Myth of Chinese Airpower

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003628.html

The relevant section:

All 3rd World States, including China, are a thin veneer of modernity stretched over a sea of abject poverty. This means they are literally one person deep in any given technological or organizational skill. The end result of this is that the average 3rd world regime looks something like this:

I don't think someone posting his fantasy war plan should say other commenters are "coming out to play".

The warlords in Afghanistan adjacent to Iran are on friendly terms with it. Bases for the invasion will have to be secured and maintained against the will of the local populace, and probably against the public statements of the central government, such as it is. The picture of the US invading Iran from bases in Afghanistan, against the wishes of the Afghans, and from Iraq, against the wishes of the Iraqis (has Ayatollah Sistani come out for a secular government in Teheran?) will be very ugly.

The difference of opinion is that you can't wait to play the bully with your superweapons, across three large countries, while I expect the whole project to come crashing down with great loss of life on all sides (in the unlikely event that it takes place). How many troops will be necessary to secure Iran compared to Iraq? How does that compare to the number available?

(Your analysis of the current strength of the Iranian military mentioned that we haven't sold them any arms, but unlike Iraq they were free to purchase them from Russia and Europe.)

Mr. Lazarus,

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. We'll all turn inside out and explode, right?

Iran's armed forces will be neutralized by psy-ops prior to onset of hostilities. They are more vulnerable to those than Iraq's, and are so politically unreliable right now that they probably wouldn't resist American forces even absent a psy-ops campaign.

The mullahs don't trust their own Revolutionary Guards anymore. Few, if any, will resist American forces when the psy-ops boys are done with them. And they lack the heavy weapons of Saddam's Republican Guards.

The Basiji will fight - as well as Saddam's Iraqi "fedayeen", i.e., they'll slow down our invasion by cluttering the roads with their burnt-out vehicles.

Hezbollah mercenaries will fight. They'll be trapped with almost everyones' hand against them. They might be as effective as Al Qaeda's forces in Iraq.

IMO, and I'm good at this, our invasion of Iran will face significantly greater logistic obstacles than our invasion of Iraq, but proportionately less organized resistance. Iran's x2.5 greater population means that total organized resistance might be about the same as in Iraq. I expect that the population difference will be more than offset by our having much greater active support from the population than in Iraq.

Our forces are much more familiar with the terrain in Iran than in Iraq, due to the facts that we built so much of Iran's transporation infrastructure (starting before Pearl Harbor) and that we expected to have to defend Iran from Soviet invasion.

Practice makes perfect too. This won't be the first time we're doing it.

I expect our casualties in conquering Iran will be at least as high as for Iraq due to more transportation accidents - Iran is that much bigger and not flat.

Conquering Iran will be the easy part.

Tom, Trent, Iblis: You make some excellent points. I suppose you're right about the relative easiness of invading Iran, but I still think President Bush won't invade. Whether or not it is the best option, it requires significant funding. Optimally, you could cut discretionary spending enough to fund the war, but the President seems bent on spending heavily on everything. Even if he wanted to, his projected budgets essentially preclude an invasion. I highly doubt he'll cut discretionary spending, but we'll see. In any case, I also still believe that fostering an internal resistance movement and capitalizing on anti-Mullah sentiment is our best option. Am I wrong?

It doesn't matter how many times the American military goes through 3rd world militaries like shit through a goose. The same people are going to make the same improbable claims that the next time will be a bloody American defeat worse than Vietnam.

Give me a flippin' break.

Joshua brings up a good point, funding. That is something that will be decided by the state of the economy, whether it is '05 or '06. But it will almost certainly happen, it is only a matter of time before it does. I personally imagine it will look more like Afghanistan than Iraq, with the USAF bombing most of the Mullah loyalists, guided by US Special Forces, who will do much of the fighting and integrating of the disperate anti-Mullah groups in Iran. I think that Bush will be able to sell it, despite the cost, because of Iran's harboring of Al Qaeda. That is something that even Congress can't tolerate. Especially with Iran so close to The Bomb.

Trent,

They're like Cubs fans - "Just wait 'til next year!"

Joshua,

Funding is not a problem. This is America.

Tom,

As someone who roots, roots, roots for the Cubbies, I resent the comparison.

Mr. Holsinger, we have 550 dead soldiers in Iraq already; we continue to tithe our own soldiers' lives and those of Iraqis who cooperate with us; we will be there for years; our government in Afghanistan controls less territory than the Soviet stooges did at the time of their collapse; our armed forces are operating under a stop-loss order and with normal rotation and refitting schedules in shambles; and into this picture you have the temerity to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about, that a few Supermen agents and their Magic Death Ray weapons will take on a task apparently much greater than the one we have undertaken. If we need 100K troops to bring stability to Iraq, how many would we need in Iran, even supposing that we overthrew the mullahs in the first place? And which units would they come from? Those summoned at the Stone of Erech?

It's possible that I don't know what I'm talking about, but even this is better than writing up your own bedtime fantasies of invincible Americans and calling it analysis. That's negative knowledge, as opposed to zero. We have heard such optimistic drivel before: I recall that by last December we were going to be down to 30,000 troops in Iraq. If it's so easy to run through those Third World armies, then, Mr. Holsinger, what the **** are our 100K+ troops doing there? Working on their suntans as summer approaches?

Andrew is right that we underestimated the number of troops we needed to pacify Iraq. But then again, we underestimated the time it would take to conquer the place. IIRC, the original estimate was around 2 months. The shorter conflict meant that we killed less bad guys, which created problems for us in the long run. In Iran, we would have to be much more careful about rounding up potential trouble makers as soon as the fighting stops.

I would ask this: Please try and keep this civil. This thread is heading into a flame war, and I would really like to avoid that. I am enjoying this thread, and don't want it thus ruined.

Andrew J. Lazarus:
"The task of occupying and reconstructing the country afterwards."
A bonus, not an essential. If necessary the regime and its main military assets can be demolished, and then you just walk away.
I wouldn't recommend it as a the best option, but it beats having a nuked up Islamist government in power.

"Warlords in Afghanistan adjacent to Iran are on friendly terms with it."
And might just reconsider their friendship given the choice of a) several suitcases full of dollars or b) the unfriendly attentions of a AC-130.
Likewise, Sistani in Iraq can, at the end of things be be given a choice: "shut up, or die."
Not pretty? War isn't.

"Our government in Afghanistan controls less territory than the Soviet stooges."
Yes, and very sensible too. You want to get in a whole bunch of blood feuds with the tribes and clans like the Sovs did? No? Then you control Kabul, set up a reasonable administration there, moderate the warlords/chiefs with money and threats, wipe out Taliban diehards, and let the country settle back to the 1960's. Modernisation can percolate out from Kabul on a timescale of decades.

"We continue to tithe our own soldiers' lives and those of Iraqis ... we will be there for years".
Yes. And cheap at the price, considering the strategic objectives.

Depending on how the political cards fall during and after an invasion of Iran, you might not want to occupy at all.
I'd say covert operations would be the best way to go, but it depends on your time limits and what the enemy can/may do in the interim.
Covert coup may beat invasion, but invasion surely beats nuclear armed ayatollahs.

Andrew,

Yes, we have had 500 soldiers 'killed in combat' (130 of the 500 you mention were killed by traffic accidents) on the streets of Iraq.

Soldier’s lives are made for sacrifice. It is incumbent of the politicians to make sure the sacrifice is worth it.

I think it is in this particular case.

You don't. Then again, nothing the Bush Administration does in this war is acceptable to you.

The alternative here to dead American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is to let thousands more Americans get murdered on the streets of America. That is unacceptable to me and most Americans.

Pretending there are any other choices is an act of 'September the 10th' fantasy.

You forget, Trent, that Andrew doesn't think that we are in a war. Much less one that has waged for over a thousand years.

Trent,

"It is a certain sign of madness to do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result."

Some here say the same thing over and over again expecting a different result next time. One of those is a Cubs fan. Others aren't.

Many of those in Iraq whose lives and money were at stake for guessing wrong got their money out before the US invaded. The same sort in Iran are doing so now.

But this is of no consequence for the non-Cubbies here. Their certainty is based on faith, not reason. "My mind is made up - don't try convincing me with facts!"

The facts aren't the problem Tom, its the analysis. People take in the same date, but reach different conclusions. Its a matter of worldview, what Kant described as our "lens." We can't see the world as it is, but rather as what we think it is, what we believe it to be, and what we think it could be. This is how someone how appears entirely rational can come up with a conclusion seemingly devoid of logic. The data is there, the thinking is there, but the manner in which it is put together is off, and thus you get irrational logic. A tree diagram with P and P-1, for example, where most people think the world is A, while a few think it is B. If the world is A, then choice 'a' is the right plan. Choice 'b' would be the wrong one. But if the world is world B, then choice 'a' is bad and 'b' is good. When people think that they live in A, when the world is in fact world B, you get this kind of thinking.

FH,

The following appears in volume II of Anthony Cordesman's Lessons of Modern Warfare, concerning the Iran-Iraq war. Mr. Cordesman quotes Iraqi officers on Iranian military prowess and equipment:

"Iranian mine-clearance technology = a boot.

Advanced Iranian mine-clearance technology = a stick to hit the mines with."

The Iran-Iraq war was a draw. We beat the crap out of the Iraqis twice afterwards. Iran's military forces have tubed in efficiency in the past ten years for the same political reliability/interference reasons Iraq's did.

Some here presently contend the battle-hardened Iranian hordes will present much more effective opposition to us than the battle-hardened Iraqi hordes.

These same people said here last year the battle-hardened Iraqi hordes would give major battle to our invading forces.

"It is a certain sign of madness to do the same thing over and over again but expect a different result.

Some here say the same thing over and over again expecting a different result next time. One of those is a Cubs fan. Others aren't."

I suppose I should have addressed the fact that some people will ignore facts that don't fit their worldview. Cognitive Dissonance can lead people to believe the strangest, and stupidest of things. Iraq didn't win because it was outnumbered, and just as poorly led as the Iranians. The only thing that worries me about Iran is the cost, in lives and treasure. Mostly the latter, as I suspect the locals will be more helpful in Iran.

When people think that they live in A, when the world is in fact world B, you get this kind of thinking.

The only thing that worries me about Iran is the cost, in lives and treasure.

If you want to talk about psychology, try John Farren's post above. I especially "like" the part where we tell Ayatollah Sistani to get on board with our plan or die. This isn't about defense of the American homeland; this is about playing out a video game in the Superman role, bullying everyone who stands in our way. Hey— Trent points out, we pay those soldiers to get in harm's way (I see he would make a truly inspiring officer), and besides, we can always hit the reboot button. [Say what, life doesn't come with cheat codes?]

Andrew Lazarus:
When you say "this is about ... bullying everyone who stands in our way" that is correct. The whole point of war is to impose your will upon the enemy, at acceptable cost to yourself. And the cost acceptable varies according to the importance of the the goal.

To threaten Sistani, or anyone else, or carry out such threats, is not a personal preference. Persuasion, political agreements, rational agreement, bribery, etc. are all options. The methods are second-order; the goal is achieving a particular objective.

As the objective is, in this case, the avoidance of a nuclear armed Iran, and preventing their giving shelter and support to terrorist opponents of the US, then I should think the costs deemed acceptable to oneself (include breaches of ethics applicable to civil society) are fairly high. Generally speaking, costs to those who can be categorised as enemies are not a concern, and costs to third-parties should be minimised, but if considered unavoidable, may have to be tolerated.

That does not mean welcoming such costs, still less failing to avoid them if possible. If practicable, limited military action against weapons-related sites might be better than invasion. As I said, I would prefer orchestrating an Iranian revolt, if possible. Better still, a successful spontaneous revolt.
Best of all, if the rulling mullahs suddenly all converted to pacifism and invited the world to tea. (I wouldn't bet on that one.)

It might even be that the nuclear timeline for Iran, and the scale of threat in Iraq, is such that other areas might be higher priorities i.e. Syria, or N. Korea, or Pakistan, or Sudan...
If so, Iran might be "contained" for the time being.

As to the operational military requirements, problems and options, I have not addressed those, as I not as expert in that area as other posters.
My essential point was that from a political/strategic viewpoint, there do not appear to be any insuperable obstacles to military operations against Iran, IF the objectives warrant it.

I would now go and play a video game, if only I had one. Not really my thing.
(Played "War in the Gulf", years ago, it came on the same CD as Civilization and Elite. Irritating thing, played it about three times, kept getting shot by unseen enemies and gave up :)

>I especially "like" the part where we tell Ayatollah Sistani to get on board with our plan or die. This isn't about defense of the American homeland; this is about playing out a video game in the Superman role, bullying everyone who stands in our way.

If you were a man, you would apologize, but I don’t expect you to.

FH,

Actually, what Kant meant by "lens" is not what we believe about the world, but how our minds are naturally structured to perceive the world. Example: Time and space are not entities perceivable by the senses, so a strict empiricist would say we cannot prove they exist. Kant would agree, but say that we cannot help but perceive things in terms of time and space if we are to perceive them at all. If I say "The cat is on the mat," my use of "is" (present tense verb) and "on" (preposition indicating space) presuppose that the cat is in a place at a time. Time and space are the "lens" through which I perceive the cat. However, there is nothing in that lens to prevent me from perceiving a rat on the mat if that is what is in fact there. My point is that our "lens" do not ipso facto make us irrational. Before a theory is tested in the real world, two entirely rational people can draw perfectly logical, if perfectly opposed, conclusions. Only if they stick to those conclusions after the fact are they being irrational. And even then, somewhat differing interpretations are possible in many cases.

About the Iran war controversy, with all due respect to Tom and Trent, I don't see it happening any time soon in the absence of an actual attack on US soil with irrefutable evidence linking it to Iran. I do believe bombing attacks on weapon sites and support (financial, propaganda, moral, and possibly covert military) for factions opposing the Mullahs are likely, but not even that before Nov. And with all due respect to Andrew, I think we should be attacking the mullahs in some form. It seems very clear to me, in retrospect, that 9/11 was the culmination of a chain of events that started with our inaction during the Iran hostage crisis. In the Middle East, we're not dealing with people who think like we do. They respect strength even when that strength is used to brutally oppress them, and they despise weakness even when that weakness arises from the compassion and good intentions of people like Andrew.

Fred,

Given Iran's:

1) support of terrorism including direct attacks in the Mid-East against our civilians and military (and once inside the USA via car bombing the van belonging to the Captain of the USS Vincennes),
2) possession of WMD including a nuclear weapons program they have lied about repeatedly to the IAEA,
3) demonstrated generation long hostility,
4) demonstrated irrational leadership and
5) the cash flow of oil wealth to fund 1-4,

it would be an impeachable offense for Bush to not invade and conquer Iran.

If the other side in a terrorist war with you is irrational and is certain to have access to WMD in the future. Then Preemptive Conventional War is the only rational answer.

Fred,

There was no irrefutable evidence that Iraq attacked us at home, or that terrorists trained in Iraq attacked us anywhere. There was only significant circumstantial evidence of the latter, and some of the former.

But we invaded Iraq anyway.

Why should Iran be any different? It is actively developing nuclear weapons, has given Al Qaeda secure bases to use in attacking us, and has overtly murdered Americans abroad.

There is a lot more evidence that Iran has, is and will come after us directly than there was for Iraq.

The Iraqis had a low opinion of Iranian military prowess during the Iran-Iraq War - what got them was Iran's x2.5 numbers and far greater fanaticism.

We went through the Iraqis like shit through a goose twice, so there is no question that we can do the same to Iran.

Occupying Iran afterwards will be much more difficult than in Iraq, though, as numbers do count more in pacification campaigns and Iran's terrain is far more favorable to guerrillas than Iraq's, as well as there being a lot more terrain period.

Tom & Trent,

Don't misunderstand me. I think destroying the Iranian Mullahcracy would be a very good thing. I just don't think it is politically or militarily feasible at this particular time. Tom, you're right about Iraq, but at the time we invaded Iraq, we weren't already occupying another country with overstretched military resources. We also hadn't just been through a war that many have concluded (wrongly in my view but nonetheless) that we were duped into. So if we invade Iran (which I still consider very unlikely) it wouldn't be until after the presidential election and not then if we can bring down or even sufficiently scare the mullahs any other way or if, God forbid, the democrats win.

I'm not ridiculing the invasion of Iran because of some fondness for the mullahs, or pacifism. I'm ridiculing it because as best as I can tell from an ordinary newspaper, it's just not feasible, at least not successfully. (Although I'm not so certain as Tom that we would defeat the Iranians as easily as he predicts, as their armed forces are not nearly so degraded as Iraq's and their morale may be higher, he seems to have noticed my points on how difficult it would be to maintain the subsequent occupation.) Now, I also don't think it's advisable, but then, the former compels the latter. If Fred has other, truly cognizable ideas about destabilizing the mullahs (more Farsi radio broadcasts? Setting up web sites for banned newspapers??), I'm all ears.

Trent:
No, Trent, I'm afraid I'm not apologizing to you, not that your rude request was anything but rhetorical. I don't see what your distinguished ancestors have to do with your fondness for truculent extolment of a crazy military mission in three hostile, guerrilla-infested countries at once. (Actually, from a psychological standpoint, maybe I do.) I would like to take the opportunity to thank the other members of your family for the sacrifices they made for you and me, but unless you left something from your own life off the list (which would have been clever), they walked the walk, and you just talk the talk.

I'm actually leaning toward Andrew on this one. One of the best predictors in this war thus far has been what President Bush says - and what he has said about Iran is consistent. He talks about different policies for different regimes, which certainly implies a different approach.

I do believe Bush is committed to regime change in Iran. I do not believe military invasion is his preferred way of bringing that about... at present.

Which makes sense. We've covered how overstretched the U.S. military currently is. Heck, Trent, you've covered it yourself. Our committment in Iraq is not going to shrink quickly, which means the troops for an Iranian invasion and transition will have to come from somewhere. Since Bush et. al. don't seem to be following our advice on expanding the military and creating a para-military corps, they seem to have few options.

Which doesn't mean "no options," of course. It looks like we're going to try covert action, and see if the regime will fall on its own. If it doesn't, however, the threat Iran poses is severe enough that decisions like calling up the entire National Guard and enacting Trent's scenario have to be on the table as Plan B.

Iran is a more serious threat than Iraq - always has been. But if you look at the logistics, politics, and sequencing, we couldn't get to Iran without Iraq. So now we've covered the preliminaries (too slowly, I thought), while the threat from Iran grew. And here we are.

Where we go next is going to be interesting.

Andrew,

I never expected you to respond other than you have.

It is a symptom of the moral degeneracy of the left that they to resort to ad hominem attacks like "chicken hawk" when their "moral superiority" is blown out of the water.

Joe,

The Command SGT. Major of the US Army is already telling troops that this war will last 10 years longer and to expect a minimum of a one year tour in a combat theater every five years for the entire Army for the duration.

There are 100,000 US Army personnel slots being recoded to move over-worked reserve specialties like Civil Affairs from the reserves to the active forces. The National Guard is being transformed from a combat force to a paramilitary force with the mass replacement of the heavy artillery brigades with military police brigades. Rummie has gotten the Army brass to buy off on his ideas of transformation and the Army will be able to deploy every active combat brigade over seas for 30 days of combat without reservists when this reorganization is competed.

The American Military operating on an operational tempo very similar to that of the WW2 Pacific theater. The units that were in Iraq are being sent home to rebuild for the next round of fighting in Iran.

Until they are ready the Bush Administration is saying "nice doggie" publicallly awaiting those units readiness for the next campaign while the psywar folks in Special Operations "prepare the ground." That military campaign will 7 out of 8 chances be Iran and it will be spooling up during the fall and winter of 2004.

Trent, frankly, I don't claim any moral superiority. I just claim that you want to turn America into a reviled nation of bullies. On the right as well as the left, that's a rather eccentric and unusual plan. Rumor that some AQ leaders live in Teheran (our intel has been so good up to now, too </sarcasm>) is not a casus belli. I know, sticking it to Old Europe, New Europe, Asia, Africa and South America is one of the good points in your view, and anyway, Islam Karimov is behind us all the way.

From other threads, Trent, you support violating the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo (at long last we may be coming into compliance) and with Jose Padilla, shredding our own Constitution. The united stream in these policies is to show the Head of the American Government (will he still be called President after a unilateral War on Iran?—one doubts the American electorate would endorse such a measure, without even the illusion of preemption of illegal WMD) is the biggest, baddest mofo on Earth, unconstrained by any law or tradition, even his own. It's priceless that the bully who said I wasn't enough of a man to apologize to him (for what?!) complains of ad hominem attacks. If the shoe fits, my anti-democratic warmongering friend, wear it.

Joe,

Surging forces for a short-term conquest is easy.

It is the long-term force commitment for occupation duty which is the real manpower issue.

I see no problem conquering Iran but major, major problems holding it.

That is why I said earlier:

"Occupying Iran afterwards will be much more of a problem than occupying Iraq. Iran is bigger, far more populated, and more mountainous. OTOH, we'll have a significantly greater amount of active local support, and we won't have to disband Iran's armed forces, so the problem period of our occupation of Iran, and the total occupation period, will be much shorter than in Iraq."

>Trent, frankly, I don't claim any moral
>superiority. I just claim that you want to turn
>America into a reviled nation of bullies.

I see you still have problems with the concept of "War" and America being in one.

>Rumor that some AQ leaders live in Teheran (our
>intel has been so good up to now, too
>) is not a casus belli.

Things that were "acceptable risks" before 9/11/2001 are no longer...but then again you don't believe 9/11/2001 changed anything.

>From other threads, Trent, you support
>violating the Geneva Conventions in Guantanamo
>(at long last we may be coming into compliance)
>and with Jose Padilla, shredding our own
>Constitution.

Andrew,

Setting up straw men to knock down is part of the moral superiority game your types play.

Unlawful combatants have no rights under the articles of the Geneva Convention America has signed. The additional articles that the Europeans and others added later to give terrorists and 3rd world brigands "rights" were never signed or acknowledged by the USA.

The "compliance" you speak of is merely for political convenience between the Bush Administration and European allies like the British and is revocable at any time of our choosing.

As for Padilla, the 1940’s laws and case precedent were very clear, but Congress in the 1970’s passed a number of laws related to the Nisei reparations mucking up the issue. That is why the Supreme Court chose to hear the case. Tom Holsinger, as a practicing lawyer, can speak to that issue far better than I.

Trent -

I'd be hella more comfortable if you'd address Andrew and his arguments dieectly rather than tossing sand at 'his types'. I stand directly in the middle on this, with clear awareness of what the mullahs in Tehran are doing as far as for-real nuclear weapons, and what they have done in supporting Islamist terror (a better casus belli, Andrew, than housing some AQ folks).

But we're stretched thin militarily and politically, and absent some greater measure of international will and the two divisions I caled for a while ago - which won't be ready for at least 24 months after they are budgeted - I'm not completely sure how we get from here to there in a winning way.

So the argument is damn interesting to me, and I'd rather not turn your views off because of the overly aggressive writing style you sometimes employ.

A.L.

A.L.,

You have used, and been caught out on doing so, the same straw man arguement attack style. So get over it. If you sleep with dogs you will wake up with fleas.

These so-called 'militants' are our pathological enemies and any we let go to sooth the feelings of some people will come back and kill us or people working for us.

We would be far better served if we simply disappear every unlawful combatant we capture into an unmarked graves. Instead we are going to play capture and release games like we did below until it gets a lot of Americans killed.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/02/World/U.Claims.Spy.Led.Attack.On.Pakistans.Leader-620520.shtml

U.S. Claims Spy Led Attack on Pakistan's Leader
Posted Feb. 27, 2004
By Anwar Iqbal