Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: up the ante?
jastayme3    12/10/2006 2:19:04 AM
Suppose we were to escalate somewhat? Start making regular raids into Syria and Iran by air and by ground at multi-battalion level or greater. Advantage: gives us the initiative, brings the battlefield into a setting in which we are more comfortable, inhibits supply to terrorists. Disadvantage: PR, not to mention we might lose control of the situation. On the other hand not escalating may hurt PR more. It may be we have to raise or fold. And the dangers of losing control are considerably less then they were in Vietnam.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
jastayme3       12/10/2006 2:24:10 AM
I suppose if we do do this, it will require an increase in troop levels. I was against that but I may be changing my mind.
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       12/10/2006 5:40:28 AM

Suppose we were to escalate somewhat? Start making regular raids into Syria and Iran by air and by ground at multi-battalion level or greater.
I'm sure if it were that easy, we would've done it by now. Cause if we attack Iran, I'm sure they'll kick out a "red rover" type command and half of Dearborn will be running "cross-border" raids into Chicago and such...

 
Quote    Reply

xylene       12/11/2006 5:06:31 AM
Limited raids into Syria and Iran will probably be met with large scale ground incursions into Iraq by both nations. Coupled with the Iranian Shiite allies in Iraq the situation would become very bloody very quick. Definitely not enough US forces in country to repel 2 foreign armies with hundreds of thousands of troops, heavy armor, and air support. Turkey would probably invade Kurdistan. The British and the rest of our allies would pull out entirely. If full shooting war between US and Iranian regular forces ensue, Iran will most likely send tens of thousands of troops into Kuwait. The US may be able to defend it , but if Kuwait falls , then US supply line to Iraq is effectively cut. Also Strait of Hormuz will be a shooting gallery.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/11/2006 4:50:53 PM

Limited raids into Syria and Iran will probably be met with large scale ground incursions into Iraq by both nations. Coupled with the Iranian Shiite allies in Iraq the situation would become very bloody very quick. Definitely not enough US forces in country to repel 2 foreign armies with hundreds of thousands of troops, heavy armor, and air support. Turkey would probably invade Kurdistan. The British and the rest of our allies would pull out entirely. If full shooting war between US and Iranian regular forces ensue, Iran will most likely send tens of thousands of troops into Kuwait. The US may be able to defend it , but if Kuwait falls , then US supply line to Iraq is effectively cut. Also Strait of Hormuz will be a shooting gallery.

I tremble at the thought that my country should have to face the ferocious and renowned martial prowess of Syria...!

As for Iran, Iran is does not really have the power to wage a maneuver war against us, and in any case such is impossible when the defender holds air supremacy.

 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/11/2006 5:19:35 PM




Limited
raids into Syria and Iran will probably be met with large scale ground
incursions into Iraq by both nations. Coupled with the Iranian Shiite
allies in Iraq the situation would become very bloody very quick.
Definitely not enough US forces in country to repel 2 foreign
armies with hundreds of thousands of troops, heavy armor, and air
support. Turkey would probably invade Kurdistan. The British and the
rest of our allies would pull out entirely. If full shooting war
between US and Iranian regular forces ensue, Iran will most likely send
tens of thousands of troops into Kuwait. The US may be able to defend
it , but if Kuwait falls , then US supply line to Iraq is effectively
cut. Also Strait of Hormuz will be a shooting gallery.



I tremble at the thought that my country should have to face the ferocious and renowned martial prowess of Syria...!



As for Iran, Iran is does not really have the power to wage a maneuver
war against us, and in any case such is impossible when the defender
holds air supremacy.

It seems to me that the primary objective of Iraq was originally "to encourage the others", and other considerations were a bonus(which is why I never was upset by finding no WMDs-for one thing I was never under the impression that they were there, except a few piles of gas rotting in an ammo dump, but that they might be there in the future). Staying in Iraq is based on similar considerations; if we don't help are allies now why should they continue to help us, and it is most useful to have a large presence in the Middle East. Democracy in Iraq is something of a bonus as far as our own interests go.
In any case Iran and Syria have been allowed to misbehave far to long without getting properly punished. They should not feel themselves immune. I don't see why a large scale campaign in the region is something to dread; in many ways it is something to welcome. We are far more likly to win and the potential cost to them is potentially greater. Whatever happens we are not likly to see the Syrian army pillageing Washington DC anytime soon and the possiblity of the reverse is hardly unlikly at least from the military point of view(Syria is mainly protected by politics).
If the Iranians enter our sphere of influence on a large scale there is quite a good chance they won't get back. If the Iranian army is severely defeated on foreign soil then Iran will be a far easier nut to crack. And if Iran invades Iraq then the insurgents will have a choice of defecting or becoming the collaborator. They might also end up coming into the open and getting slaughtered.
Now of course an escalation would be bad news for any stability we have acheived in the countryside. That would be relevant if Iraq was the chief goal. However it is not. The chief goal is to render terrorists powerless. And administering their chief sponsor a defeat on the battlefield goes toward that.
We can escalate far beyond what Iran and Syria can. They know that. Do we?

 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Jaatayme   12/11/2006 5:40:43 PM
What do u mean by escalating to against Syria & Iran--there are several levels of escalation as u know. Plus Iran & Syria are not supporting insurgents as say we supported Mujahadeen in Soviet occupied Afghanistan. These are pretty low intensity insurgencies driven by the local Iraqi Sunni & Shias.  But I wanted to understand ur definition of hurting Syria & Iran. Do we go all the way to Nuclear, B-52s, Tomahawks or what?? Add more troops, naval blockade?? what??
Its obvious that our power on the ground is no big deal for Iraqis to keep in limbo much less to get Iran and Syria involved-unless u wanna draft and send in 400000 troops?? Ur dealing with a political situ in a military fashion when we cannot even increase troop level in Iraq. Curious??
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       12/11/2006 9:38:25 PM

What do u mean by escalating to against Syria & Iran--there are several levels of escalation as u know. Plus Iran & Syria are not supporting insurgents as say we supported Mujahadeen in Soviet occupied Afghanistan. These are pretty low intensity insurgencies driven by the local Iraqi Sunni & Shias.  But I wanted to understand ur definition of hurting Syria & Iran. Do we go all the way to Nuclear, B-52s, Tomahawks or what?? Add more troops, naval blockade?? what??

Its obvious that our power on the ground is no big deal for Iraqis to keep in limbo much less to get Iran and Syria involved-unless u wanna draft and send in 400000 troops?? Ur dealing with a political situ in a military fashion when we cannot even increase troop level in Iraq. Curious??

Much as explained at first-it will force them to have the raise or fold choice instead of us. For us to raise all the way to a large campaign would be impossible politically. But benefits could be gotten from forcing them to decide whether they are willing to.
And yes I already admited that would require more troops being sent.
As for whether Iran and Syria are supporting the local insurgencies it is generally accepted that they are supporting them as well as other terrorist movements against ourselves and our allies.
As for what I mean by "hurting" Syria and Iraq, I am of the opinion that if they do raise all the way to a "conventional" style campaign they will be hurt very badly-to the point of several divisions being destroyed in the old fashioned manner. If they raised only to a tit-for-tat level we can be pretty sure of giving a good account of ourselves.
And no it is not necessary to conscript people for this. Neither Syria nor Iran can get up a decent offensive against us. Air power nuts exaggerate. But they are right in one thing; it is impossible to move large columns when the enemy holds supremacy unless the terrain is peculiarly favorable. It is far different then a few gunrunners. In a way I want to goad Syria and Iran into marching into their doom.
To aquire troops we will have to pull them out of the Iraqi countryside and concentrate them. And send more from other parts of the world. But if a large campaign develops the ground troops will at first be the shield not the sword. They will pin the enemy while the air shoots them to bits. They have been practiceing at this kind of thing for thirty years. After words if opertunity presents they can gobble them up on the way home.
After treatment like that they will be "hurt"-that is they will have severely reduced their capacity. We will also raise our prestiege.
If as is likly, the enemy realizes this and does not take the bait, they will end up with egg on their face in a place where politics and reputation are synonamous.
The chances of their winning are in inverse proportion to the level of intensity. While theoretically we can keep the present state in Iraq up indefinitely, it is obvious that public opinion will not stand for it. We do have a reasonable chance of winning this way. The only way our local prestiege can suffer this way is if we actually lose on the battlefield which is unlikly. America has not had a major tactical defeat since Korea and has improved considerably since then. Syria has never won, and Iran does not have the force to mount a major offensive against the US-and has probably gotten sloppy since the Iran-Iraq war. Why not remind them of that? It is more important to be feared then to be loved.


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics