What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[Art]

Thanks for the complement.

np but if you don't mind before jumping in and saving the free world would you check first with us to see if we need saving. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The Irish never needed to save themselves. The Brits were always there to do it for them. Remember WWII?

 

[Art]

The Irish never needed to save themselves. The Brits were always there to do it for them. Remember WWII?

Warren, Ireland like Switzerland were neutral during WW2. In fact the only ones with plans to invade Ireland during WW2 were the Brits - It was Churchill's contingency plan if the Germans invaded Britain. Given the fact the Irish had spent the last 700 years getting rid of the Brits they wouldn't have been exactly welcomed. The second world war started over Britain's concern for her empire. She declared war on Germany for purely selfish reasons. It wasn't until the war was nearly over that people realized what Hitler had been up to in the death camps and suddenly that was being portrayed as the reason for the war. In fact Hitler had many admirers amongst the elite of Britain.

 

[jhe1984]

I've got to respectfully disagree about Iran not having much effective missile counterstrike potential. The Sunburn and Exocet missiles are dangerous, as you mentioned. But as for land based missile systems, they've also got plenty of Scuds (within range of Baghdad) as well as (presumably) several Shahab 3 missiles - of uncertain reliability. But depending on the number of missiles, sheer odds would presume that even a couple of missiles that ended up hitting Baghdad, say Camp Victory or even the Green Zone or Baghdad International (lol), and several of KBR's mammoth facilities in the northern deserts, would/could reasonably kill a thousand or several thousand US troops slash US contract employess (wait staff, etc). I'm also not sure that some missiles couldn't reach Kuwait.

Those Scud attacks you're referring to had to be fired from the few remaining mobile launchers, pretty much on the run: not many were left after SF and the apaches. Iran's got, imo, a noticeably better quality missile network.

However, I concede that those first estimates of 10 to 20,000 were not very realistic, mainly because I neglected two main facts. First, once the Iranian's turn there missile guidance systems on, radar, etc, the US can easily pinpoint and lock on to them. So even if they got off a few dozen or even a hundred on the first salvo, there'd probably not be anyone left to man the second wave. Secondly, with several exceptions, the US Patriot and Israeli arrow countermissile systems could probably down a significant portion of those missiles that were launched. This is all good news for the West. But again, if this scenario occurs, it's basically on from there. Who the heck knows what could go right/wrong from that point. Depending on how much dough we felt like spending, the US might even be able to maintain such a heavy standoff bombardment presence that it'd be unwise for the Iranians to even stick their heads out.

But mainly I agree that it's a matter of bad or worse, with war being the worst solution (I'm not considering Iranian developing nukes much of a "solution").

At first, I was of the opinion that Iran, much like North Korea, was pursuing nuclear weapons simply to have as a bargaining chip at the negotiation tables. But lately I wonder if the clerical regime feels it is backed into such a corner both from the outside and inside that it doesn't think it has any other method of survival without nuclear weapons, which is quite a different and more dangerous challenge than DPRK. Once they got them, they'd be much in the same position as DRPK but I'm not convinced that they aren't hellbent on getting them or going to war trying, as that (as far as I can see) is their only way to stay in power.

Quoting the statesman Jack Black, "The middle east is just a crazy hornet's nest" (repeat verse ~ 15 times for song). :yuck:

 

[Art]

Iran according to National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East the more modern of which are impervious to the patriot defense system.

Here's what he had to say today

Iran has no bomb but it will hit back, US told
By Alec Russell in Washington and Anton La Guardia in London
February 4, 2006


IRAN'S clerical regime is supremely confident, has a firm grip on power and is ready to retaliate against attacks by the US or Israel with missiles or by activating terrorist allies, the latest American intelligence assessment says.

The National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte, delivered an implied rebuke to those in Washington hoping the West can engineer regime change in Tehran. In Tuesday's State of the Union address, President George Bush issued a veiled call for the Iranian people to rise up against the mullahs.

But on Thursday, as the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing body prepared to vote on a resolution to report Iran to the UN Security Council, Mr Negroponte suggested there was no imminent threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Tehran "probably" did not have an atomic bomb or the fissile material to make one, he said. But the risk Iran could make or buy a nuclear device and mount it on its missiles was "reason for immediate concern".

Mr Negroponte told the Senate intelligence committee: "Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. And Tehran views its ballistic missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against forces in the region, including United States forces."

http://smh.com.au/news/world/iran-h...it-back-us-told/2006/02/03/1138958906849.html

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You really do need to do some basic research. Ireland like Switzerland were neutral during WW2. In fact the only ones with plans to invade Ireland during WW2 were the Brits - It was Churchill's contingency plan if the Germans invaded Britain.

Typical. . . . The fact is that Ireland's relation to the UK is like the relation of Canada to the US. No one is going to attack either without going through their more powerful neighbor first. The difference is that Canada has been for the most part, a reliable ally, OIF notwithstanding, whereas Ireland reaps the benefits of anglospheric imperialism without incurring any costs. I haven't heard of any Irish newspapers publishing cartoons depicting the last great prophet, so you're probably not at risk. In any case, Iranian IRBMs can only reach southern Europe so far. But don't worry, we will CYA when the time comes.

 

[Art]

Typical. . . . The fact is that Ireland's relation to the UK is like the relation of Canada to the US. No one is going to attack either without going through their more powerful neighbor first. The difference is that Canada has been for the most part, a reliable ally, OIF notwithstanding, whereas Ireland reaps the benefits of anglospheric imperialism without incurring any costs. I haven't heard of any Irish newspapers publishing cartoons depicting the last great prophet, so you're probably not at risk. In any case, Iranian IRBMs can only reach southern Europe so far. But don't worry, we will CYA when the time comes.

Honestly Warren, you seriously have no idea of the historical relationship between Ireland and England. This thread isn't the place to go into it but if you wish to start another to discuss the topic feel free as I would very much like to hear more about the benefits we gained through 'anglospheric imperialism'. The only advantage springs to mind is all the wide open spaces we have as a result of the Brits starving 25% of the population to death and forcing another 25% to emigrate. :rofl:

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You are correct of course, Art. That's a whole other thread topic. There's more pressing things to discuss for the present. You guys are alright--don't get me wrong. I see you now have the third highest GDP per capita in world. Those centuries of English occupation didn't hold you down for long. Heck, I wouldn't mind moving out there if you'll take me. :!) :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:

 

[SOS2008]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: This is funniest post I've seen in ages. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

My personal favorite was this part:

Regarding Iraqian oil pipelines, they're already being sabotaged, and oil is not flowing from Iraq at prewar levels. So much for the theory that the war was about oil.

So...it couldn't be that oil was the reason (or at least a big factor), but as usual Bush's plan was poorly executed?

There must be something in the water in "red" states that causes an "if P then Q" malfunction.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

There must be something in the water in "red" states that causes an "if P then Q" malfunction.

Considering that us red states in the flyover territories are geographically larger by far (especially if you go by county by county basis), if there's something wrong with the water, it's probably in the blue zones.

 

[Art]

Obviously if the US wage total war there is no doubt they can turn Iran into a hole in the desert but given the strategic importance of Iran it seems a more limited engagement would be necessary so let's have a look at the US military's options and the likely consequences;

1) The US could stand off and bomb from afar using cruise missiles and smart bombs.

Cruise missiles would be ineffective against the hardened underground targets they would be going after and it would be dangerous for bombers as Iran has a sophisticated anti-aircraft system which has not been degraded by years of bombing.

Iran would also probably respond with a massive missile attack on US forces in Iraq and on Israel. The shi'ites in Iraq would probably also rise up against the US forces leaving them with only possibly the Kurds left supporting them. Another key problem is that if Iran has secret nuclear facilities working on creating a nuke they will remain unscathed but the chances of Iran using a nuke once ready would escalate exponentially. And if in fact they don't have these secret facilities then there is no justification for attacking them in the first place.

2) The US could gather together a new invasion force in Iraq with a view to occupying the country.

Would probably result in the same consequences as option 1. It means they have more chance of finding any hidden weapons programs but the casualty count would likely be enormous especially as learning from Iraq's experience the Iranians are unlikely to sit back whilst the US builds up it's forces in the hope that it will all blow over and that they'll just go away.

Anybody any other options??

 

[jhe1984]

Cool find with that Negroponte article, Art. Quite relevant!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

2) The US could gather together a new invasion force in Iraq with a view to occupying the country.

the Iranians are unlikely to sit back whilst the US builds up it's forces in the hope that it will all blow over and that they'll just go away.

Anybody any other options??

An Iranian invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan would be ill-advised, although the option of just sitting and waiting isn't much better. An early advance might be expected, but then they would be pinched off the way the Germans were in the Battle of the Bulge, or the Iraqians when they tryed to invade Saudi Arabia.

 

[Art]

An Iranian invasion of Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan would be ill-advised, although the option of just sitting and waiting isn't much better. An early advance might be expected, but then they would be pinched off the way the Germans were in the Battle of the Bulge, or the Iraqians when they tryed to invade Saudi Arabia.

True an invasion would be unwise but cruise missile / ballistic missile strikes against incoming ships or the unloading docks would I imagine be effective and hard to counter?? Bear in mind I don't imagine the Iranians would think for one moment that they could win the war but would concentrate simply on making it as painful as possible for the US.

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

All they have to do is drive over the border.

 

[jhe1984]

Air reinforcement would be limited as the main US battle tank is too heavy to move by air in any useful quantity.

Not sure what you mean here. Why would tanks be needed for air reinforcement?

If you're thinking along the lines of a pre-Gulf war I buildup and border crossing, I don't think that'd work for several reasons. First, the centerpiece of Iranian military configuration is protecting its western border with Iraq. This stems not so much from the US presence (although that hasn't helped) as from the hard lessons learned during the decade long war with Hussein, fought mostly around this border line.

Plus I'm not sure a tank invasion would make any sense unless we're trying to occupy Iran, which itself makes little sense. Firstly, we'd be coming through the Ahvaz region (which is for the most friendly to anti-regime forces anyway) and second the targets that we're interested in are spread out all across the country.

Actually, I reconsider. If you were going to occupy the country in order to overthrow the regime, the smartest initial move you could make would be to drive quickly to take over the border. This would ensure control of a lot of Iranian reserves as well as protect the vital sea route. But this is talking full scale war including a lot of naval battles.

If you're simply talking about suppression of air defenses, tanks wouldn't be required as much. We'd use Apaches, f-18s and (hopefully) F-22s [i'd kinda like to see how those perform, as sadistic as that may be], and special forces operators, much like we did in first stages of Gulf War I and mostly in Desert Fox campaigns. If I had to guess, I'd say this operation would look a lot like a mixture of the Osirak raid and US Desert Fox campaigns, suppresion and attack.

PS - I've been reading about another option - Israel flying through Turkey to Iran (bypassing SA and Iraq). Any thoughts?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Israel will stay on the sidelines--unless they decide to invade Syria. Don't worry, the U.S. and NATO et al. will do what is necessary.

And why do you think the Ahvaz region is the most likely route? The main thrust will go through Khordestan province.

You heard it here first.

 

[Lisa!]

There aren't enough beds in the U.S. prison system to house every American blogger that lies online. No, the reason they get arrested in Iran is because they tell the truth. Why would someone lie about sneaking food to work during Ramadan? I'd do the same. I thank God I'm not Islamic. I don't have to worry about entering doors right-side first because the left side is unclean, like one friend told me she used to do.

1. So your government just want to keep in touch with you and be more close to you by monitoring what you do over the internet and your personal calls?
2. why should they tell lies? Simple! For attracting more people to read their blog!(wow, it really worked because even Americans are interested in these blogs!)

Forget the 2 above, warren! I don't want to accuse them of telling lies because I'm not sure about it. That's not important at all! Just 1 thing:
If the situation is not good in Iran, if there are violations of humans' right, IT IS ONLY IRANIAN WHO SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT not other countries especially US. You know these excuses don't work in Iran case. They simply don't believe that you want to give them their freedom:

1. during the 8 years war against Iran, US was reinforcing Iraq by different kind of weapons. Humans rights = chemical weapons, am I right?
(tell me I'm lying but that's what Iran claims all the time and almost all Iranian believe it. note that US has to deal with Iranian in Iran not with UN or other people in the world)

2.well there are lots of examples that US proves that they don't care much about humans when it comes to hostility! Hurting the enemy at any price.
like this 1
well tell me it was a mistake. Oh my God how do you want to go on a war by this awful navy? (never mind it was many years ago, but the majority of population in Iran think that was deliberately.)

Warren whether you want to believe it or not US would have a very harder time in iran than Iraq.
I)the war last so long!
II) even if they win the war, they would have a hard time in Iran. At least Iraqies was hopeful to get rid of Saddam, but Iranian are still hopeful to do changes by their own.

Anyway man, I'm getting to like you!
P.S. don't waste your time to reply to this post, I was just trying to argue the way some people do(not you of course), so I admit that it might be a pointless post.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Forget the 2 above, warren! I don't want to accuse them of telling lies because I'm not sure about it. That's not important at all! Just 1 thing:
If the situation is not good in Iran, if there are violations of humans' right, IT IS ONLY IRANIAN WHO SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT not other countries especially US. You know these excuses don't work in Iran case. They simply don't believe that you want to give them their freedom:

Look, if the situation were somehow reversed, and I couldn't eat food during the daytime, and if American bloggers were being arrested for posting whatever they wanted, I would be one of those Northern Alliance guys that would welcome a foreign force to liberate me and my friends and family--be it Mexican, Canadian or even Irish.

And if the U.S. was somehow involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq, I will be the first to say that those responsible should be strung up by their ****s. I don't believe that is the case, but I might be wrong--although selling hundreds of tons of insecticide could definitely be construed as such an attempt.

Regarding the unfortunate tragedy involving the good ship USS Vincennes, as a sailor in the evil navy during GWI, the scuttlebutt that I heard from fellow sailors was that the people on the airliner were already dead--that is, that the people fished out of the ocean already had rigor mortis. But hey, that's just a second hand rumor that I heard from fellow enlisted blokes. Do not quote me.

In any case, the USS Vincennes did not know that they were not under attack. Remember the USS Stark? Things were hotter with Iran then than they are now.

 

[Lisa!]

Look, if the situation were somehow reversed, and I couldn't eat food during the daytime, and if American bloggers were being arrested for posting whatever they wanted, I would be one of those Northern Alliance guys that would welcome a foreign force to liberate me and my friends and family--be it Mexican, Canadian or even Irish.

:rofl: Liberate them? well dear, I told you they couldn't trust US. 1.They know that US isn't stupid enough to attack their country for liberating them.
2. Most of Iranian have very bad impression of US politicians.

3. suppose you're right and people don't have the right to eat food during a month, but don't forget that the majority of population in Iran are musims and have no problem with that. and some of them even don't give a damn to a i blogger who wants to eat during the dattime in that holly month. Anyway as far as I know some people(like sick people) are allowed to eat even during ramadan. so I can't believe what this person says. he can simmply eat and others might think he's sick.

And if the U.S. was somehow involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq, I will be the first to say that those responsible should be strung up by their ****s. I don't believe that is the case, but I might be wrong--although selling hundreds of tons of insecticide could definitely be construed as such an attempt.

well how can you be sure that your country hadn't done that? Either way that couldn't be important since here the Iranian's judgement is important not you!
Just a question: so how did saddam get those weapons?

Regarding the unfortunate tragedy involving the good ship USS Vincennes, as a sailor in the evil navy during GWI, the scuttlebutt that I heard from fellow sailors was that the people on the airliner were already dead--that is, that the people fished out of the ocean already had rigor mortis. But hey, that's just a second hand rumor that I heard from fellow enlisted blokes. Do not quote me.

Come on! mistaking or shooting a airliner full of dead people? They'd better to stick to their first lie. The second 1 doesn't make sense to me at all. how could they know that they were already dead befor shooting them and why would they want to shoot a ghost airliner?:uhh:
Anyway again that doesn't make any big difference. Most of people in US are brain washed against Iran and well Iranian are brain washed against US. Just think about it!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Suppose you're right and people don't have the right to eat food during a month; but don't forget that the majority of the population in Iran are Muslims and have no problem with that. And some of them even don't give a damn to (sic) a i blogger who wants to eat during the daytime in that holy month.

The blog I was thinking of, Iranian Girl said this--not me. Maybe she's lying. Read her words yourself and decide. Hmm. No posts since October 28, 2005 with no explanation. I hope she's OK--and so should you.

Come on! mistaking or shooting an airliner full of dead people? They'd better to stick to their first lie. . . . How could they know that they were already dead before shooting them and why would they want to shoot a ghost airliner?

The United States Navy did not want to shoot down anybody. The sailors who pressed that fatal button did not know that the airliner was full of dead people--if that is in fact the case. On the other hand, a Navy frigate had almost got sunk from another (albeit Iraqian) attack, the Identify Friend or Foe device on the Iranian airliner was apparently not working, and the airliner was descending towards the Vincennes in the middle of the Gulf.

If you were the captain, what would you do?

 

[Lisa!]

The blog I was thinking of, Iranian Girl said this--not me. Maybe she's lying. Read her words yourself and decide. Hmm. No posts since October 28, 2005 with no explanation. I hope she's OK--and so should you.

The United States Navy did not want to shoot down anybody. The sailors who pressed that fatal button did not know that the airliner was full of dead people--if that is in fact the case. On the other hand, a Navy frigate had almost got sunk from another (albeit Iraqian) attack, the Identify Friend or Foe device on the Iranian airliner was apparently not working, and the airliner was descending towards the Vincennes in the middle of the Gulf.

If you were the captain, what would you do?

well warren, I guess you're missing my point here. It's not important that whether The US navy shot down the airliner deliberately or not, or that girl was lying or not. The important thing here is what Iranian think of these 2.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well, if I was Iranian Girl, I might not think it impossible that my government might fill an airliner full of dead people from the morgue and send it on a suicide mission against an American Aegis cruiser just in order that it would get shot down. (And I'm hoping that they would at least use dead people--live people didn't stop the WTC attacks. So I'm trying to give the Iranians a bit of credit.)

In addition, if I was sitting in jail for blogging about starving during Ramadan, I think I might welcome the Americans--not for their MRE's, but for freedom.

 

[Lisa!]

Well, if I was Iranian Girl, I might not think it impossible that my government might fill an airliner full of dead people from the morgue and send it on a suicide mission against an American Aegis cruiser just in order that it would get shot down. (And I'm hoping that they would at least use dead people--live people didn't stop the WTC attacks. So I'm trying to give the Iranians a bit of credit.)

In addition, if I was sitting in jail for blogging about starving during Ramadan, I think I might welcome the Americans--not for their MRE's, but for freedom.

Well dear, you can see the world the way you want!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Well dear, you can see the world the way you want!

I don't know the true story regarding the USS Vincennes tragedy. But somebody does. At best let's hope it was an accident. I don't believe that the Navy would shoot down an airliner on purpose. What possible gain is there, even if you think we are that Machiavellian?

 

[Lisa!]

I don't know the true story regarding the USS Vincennes tragedy. But somebody does. At best let's hope it was an accident.

Ok, I hope so!

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't been following this thread, but I saw one thing I want to comment on:

2.well there are lots of examples that US proves that they don't care much about humans when it comes to hostility! Hurting the enemy at any price.
like this 1 [snip] (never mind it was many years ago, but the majority of population in Iran think that was deliberately.))

Whether it was a mistake or deliberate, it doesn't have anything at all to do with that "hurting the enemy at any price" thing. Ie, if it was a mistake, then it was just self-preservation of one ship captain taken too far. If it was deliberate, then it was murder - which doesn't have anything to do with conduct of war. In neither case was there a legitimate target in the area that the captain was attacking "at any price".

well tell me it was a mistake. Oh my God how do you want to go on a war by this awful navy?

This incident is used as a case-study at the Naval Academy. It is a good example of how the heat of battle can make people overreact. But it was not unreasonable for that captain to be wary of possible attack from the air since he had just finished a surface battle.

Anyway, there really is no good reason to believe that it was deliberate. I know some Iranians will believe that it was, but that isn't a rational belief. And that's setting aside that conspiracy theory about the plane being a set-up. I was in the Navy too and I've never heard and don't buy that one. It's about as likely as...well...it being deliberate on the side of the US.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Aegis cruiser was then new and its self-defense radar/missile system had never been used in actual combat against air attack. The commander was wrong and was censured, but it requires great animus to see this as a deliberate action. Do yoiu suppose they positioned themselves where they were just in case an airliner would dip low over them? Come on!

 

[Lisa!]

Whether it was a mistake or deliberate, it doesn't have anything at all to do with that "hurting the enemy at any price" thing. Ie, if it was a mistake, then it was just self-preservation of one ship captain taken too far. If it was deliberate, then it was murder - which doesn't have anything to do with conduct of war. In neither case was there a legitimate target in the area that the captain was attackign "at any price". This incident is used as a case-study at the Naval Academy. It is a good example of how the heat of battle can make people overreact. But it was not unreasonable for that captain to be wary of possible attack from the air since he had just finished a surface battle.

Anyway, there really is no good reason to believe that it was deliberate. I know some Iranians will believe that it was, but that isn't a rational belief. And that's setting aside that conspiracy theory about the plane being a set-up. I was in the Navy too and I've never heard and don't buy that one. It's about as likely as...well...it being deliberate on the side of the US.

Thanks for the information! I'd be grateful if someone enlighten me on chemical weapons as well! :shy:

P.S. I can't prove 'hurting the enemy at any price' thing here. So I take it back. Perhaps I had other things like wwII in my mind when I said that, but I don't think it would apply to this case as well! So we have no argument here!

The Aegis cruiser was then new and its self-defense radar/missile system had never been used in actual combat against air attack. The commander was wrong and was censured, but it requires great animus to see this as a deliberate action. Do yoiu suppose they positioned themselves where they were just in case an airliner would dip low over them? Come on!

well for sure there are people who have that great animus to see this as a deliberate action!

 

[jhe1984]

"And why do you think the Ahvaz region is the most likely route? The main thrust will go through Khordestan province. "

Mainly, I think Ahvaz (khuzistan) because I think we're already there, not tanks but sf. From there, linking up with Ahvazi arab resistance, it'd be reasonably possible to coordinate some sort of afghanistan-esque sf air controller movement while the armor, if it needed to, could cross from Khordestan.

If it becomes a tank battle, I agree Khordestan 100%, except that it's probably heavily mined. It'd slow us down a little if we were thinking some sort of lightning raid into Iran. Plus, it might be fairly easy to land in Khuzestan (marines, etc) and march up from there. Also, it secures the ports.

But yeah, if we're talking armor, it's probably a "pick your thrust/pick your feint" exercise.

 

[Art]

All they have to do is drive over the border.

Unless they already have sufficient heavy armour in place then they still have to get the heavy weaponry from America to the battle zone. Afghanistan is landlocked, Iraqi and Israeli ports are within missile range and for domestic reasons it is highly unlikely Pakistan will allow them to enter through their ports.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

James, you're right about the need to secure Iranian ports and the Gulf coast. So, there will have to be at least two lines of attack. I mentioned Khordistan because it is the shortest way to Tehran, and the Kurds and Azers there might not mind toppling the central regime.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Unless they already have sufficient heavy armour in place then they still have to get the heavy weaponry from America to the battle zone. Afghanistan is landlocked, Iraqi and Israeli ports are within missile range and for domestic reasons it is highly unlikely Pakistan will allow them to enter through their ports.

I believe that there is already a lot of armor in the Gulf region. If more is necessary, the sea lanes are open for now. If worse comes to worse, they can always land on the Red Sea coast or on the other side of the horn like by Fujarah. There's also Turkey, but yeah, they aren't too reliable. And if there is more to come, they will most likely come from Europe where they are collecting dust for now.

 

[jhe1984]

"I believe that there is already a lot of armor in the Gulf region. "

Agreed. Most likely, the Abrams and other heavy armor are the most underused pieces of equipment in Iraq right now. Since we can't really whack at the flies with the sledge hammers, they're probably just sitting around.

If anything they'll just have to drive east from al Anbar to Sulemiyah.

If I recall correctly, though, they were a b**ch to get in there, cause Turkey was closed.

 

[BobG]

Are you sure Bush is the man to set out on this quest?

Something has to give, and it’s giving. Resources are over-stretched. Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life.

I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments – in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I’ve said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.

Oh, wait, that's what he said in 1999 - http://www.seanrobins.com/documents/bush%20george%20w/Bush_GW_1999_09_23.htm

Actually, I wasn't looking for that. I was comparing the latest Quadrennial Defense Review to the 2001 QDR and to Bush's campaign promises (back then, Rice and Rumsfeld were the only good thing you could say about Bush). The words about transforming the military are still there, but the effort seems to be running out of gas (the QDR sets the vision while the budget tells how effectively the vision is being implemented).

We saw the impact even a partial transformation into a lighter, faster, more lethal military could have during the Iraq invasion. That's fine for America's traditional goals, when invading and occupying a foreign country was the last thing on anyone's mind. Unfortunately, faster and lighter aren't that effective for a stationary army of occupation. The US military is designed to respond to crises, not to create them.