It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War On Terror: Who's next?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
There are several theories on exactly why Afghanistan and Iraq were targeted. Some believe it's purely a matter of war on terror. Some say it's strictly economic, or worse. Others would contend that it is a strategic matter revolving chiefly around Iran and the Caspian Sea. It is plausible that some combination of those three factors and others constitute the full motive for America's choice of targets in the war on terror.

My question to you, which I will briefly give a few of my ideas on, is who should have been the first targets, which nations possibly should have been left alone, and who, if anyone, should be next. What is the purpose of the campaign as you see it, and how do your statements reflect that.

I hasten to point out that the legality and morality of the war in iraq have been discussed to death and that I would be extremely appreciative if we could devote this thread to something along the lines of a strategy think-tank. Obviously those who disagree with the war are welcome to state the reasons they believe the war is being persued, and which nations they think will come next, and are welcome to stipulate their lack of favor for it. I just politely ask that we confine the discussion to motive and the implications for who should be or will be attacked, rather than being immediately bogged down in an ideological impasse between left and right, or hawks and doves.


Anyway: I see the war on terror as being extremely multi-faceted.

There are strategic concerns relating to Central Asia which include the flow of Caspian Sea gas reserves, the futures of Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, which includes the allowance of Russian and Chinese military forces there. The above have implications for relations between India and Pakistan as well as between those two nations and the rest of the world, especially in terms of Russia, China, and America competing for their economic and political partnership.

There's the matter of access to Iran in the event of war over their nuclear weapons program, and with that access comes access to launching points for UAVs as well as access to populations which could be made HUMINT assets against Turkic (not to be confused with Turkish) and Arab foes.

There is the obvious question, both economic and strategic, of secure access to the Persian Gulf and the safety of moderate governments in the region which deal favorably with the West.

There is the matter of economic influence in Iraq which includes keeping oil priced in dollars and hopefully opening up supply.

There is the hope of scaring Syria towards the middle, getting them out of Lebanon (accomplished), and thereby hindering the power of Hamas and other groups hostile towards Israel, which besides being a nation which many Americans sympathize with, is at the focus of a problem which a president would become instantly immortal for solving.

There are domestic angles obviously. The war on terror has justified a great deal of military spending, who knows how much of that into black budgets. The war on terror has been very profitable for certain contractors. It has created a stress on reserve forces which could, theoretically, lead to either a major restructuring or compulsory service in the reserves. It has made terrorism a presence in the news despite the dearth of terrorist activity on US soil, allowing the momentum of 9/11 to be sustained for the development of Homeland Security (which, depending on how you look at it, may be positive or negative- I for one say negative, though I am less certain as to how sinister the intentions actually are; I just doubt the wisdom of introducing such awful potential.


Afghanistan made perfect strategic sense. The followup did not. A longer, stronger presence in Afghanistan and a rapid building of both government and commerce in Afghanistan was important, but it didn't happen.

Pakistan is the missing link in the chain. Pakistan is unstable and is in a perilous position socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Western Pakistan should have been the focus of compulsory joint US-Pakistani work against the local warlords, aimed at settling that area under the control of the Pakistani government and building an economic base for Afghanistan. Afghanistan's history shows that it can not thrive, or even survive very long, in a land-locked state. They have historically had access to the sea either via masters or puppets in either Iran or Pakistan. Pakistan should have come before Iraq, and that mission should probably be ongoing in large scale at this time still.

Iraq made sense, but not great sense. Iraq's access to the open sea is in peril, and thus it is not strategically as strong of a position as Syria. Syria is also better positioned for intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Syria would have been just as ugly as Iraq I believe, maybe worse, though for slightly different reasons (More a pure Jihad than a matter of ethnic and religious rivalries- civil war would not be the aim, we would be the primary targets.) IF a large scale operation should have been undertaken after Afghanistan/Pakistan, Syria was the logical starting place. (I'm not convinced such an operation should have been carried out either in Syria or Iraq so quickly).

Economic and Political ties to the United Arab Emirates would have made a lot of sense for dealing with Iran. It shares coast on the strait of hormuz and thus can be used as an airbase for ensuring an open gulf. It's a workable jumping off place for an invasion of Iran if such should ever be necessary, and would provide a second front for the defense of Afghanistan/Pakistan if that shoudl become necessary. A little money, a little favor, and some donated military hardware could have gone a long way there, and we wouldn't have had to station many people there- we could have left some heavy equipment, such as armor and artillery there, just in sufficient quantity to bolster our light infantry screen until a full deployment could be made, and left a skeleton staff there, and that would have been a sound anchor against the older, slower forces in that region.

Indonesia would have been a good project too. The nature of an island chain allows ares to be semi-isolated by a relatively small force from the Navy/Marine Corps. We could have taken care of one of the outlying strongholds of Islamic terrorism, gained greater strategic presence in the West Pacific (thus creating a hedge against unlikely but possible problems with China, India, or Japan 50 years down the road), and it would have been a hell of a lot easier than Iraq while providing all of the domestic effects (I don't say benefits- just effects).

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda... So who IS next? Iran is the obvious answer, but I'm not convinced it will really hit the fan. We may be content to have Israel knock out the reactors, just like Osirak in '81.

I think that if the PNAC has their way, the suprise of the new millenium will be war with Jordan. Jordan is easier than Syria, historically a bit more closely tied to the Israel-Palestine debate, directly connects Iraq and Israel, Completes a "wall" between Saudi Arabia and anyone to the North, resolves any dispute over rights to the Jordan River which Israel and others may encounter (and thus provides the basis for outside planning of agricultural development, or lack thereof, in the region). Unlikely to happen, but probably a goal.

Egypt is up for a possible coup. Ditto Syria. Iran, if things go badly, could be the last flat-out invasion of the war on terror (unless of course the Republicans miraculously rule for another 8-12 years). Yemen and Oman are much further down the list, but would eventually come up, especially if 1. Sudan is split, and 2. Iran is not invaded, and 3. The PNAC remains a potent influence on American foreign policy. Turkmenistan may be put in play somehow, I'm not sure how because i'm not entirely familar with the area. I think Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan are lost causes, probably Uzbekistan too. Short of an invasion and a clash with the Russians and Chinese, that's Russo-Chinese territory now.

I mentioned Sudan, and look for North Africa to heat up a little if they decide to split when the referendum comes around. It will be kept out of the public eye. If nobody has plans for them, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, I'll be shocked.

Realistically it will take 30 years for this all to materialize if the parties continue taking turns in office at a roughly 1.5-2:1 ratio of Republicans to Democrats. It won't happen at all if the Democrats come too much into vogue, unless of course they become less dovish once in power (Remember Clinton's first term?)




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Is it really nessesary for the US to try to control everyone they fear and bring their morals (remember morals are only correct from the point of view of those who grew up with them. Although there are of course some moral values that are the same in every culture but that's something for a different topic) to people who should have the right to fight for their own rights and decide their own path. Fighting against a nation that has declared war on you is one thing, invading a nation without provication so it can be rebuilt in a way that is more to your liking is a whole different thing. Surely the US has learnt from past mistakes or are we back to bringing civilization to savages again? Hmm... isn't that what Musolini also claimed to be doing when he invaded Abyssinia, he didn't like the League of Nations much like the US doesn't like the UN but just like modern day US no one stood up to them. Oh how easy it is to justify a war, ah well at least the Philipines is a good christian nation now so maybe it was all worth it... The words and methods change to fit the era but the theme stays the same.

U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-10-2005 by Sabre262]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
My compliments to Vagabond on a well thought through submission. The accuracy of some of the individual analyses is subject to debate, but the overall thrust is very much on target.
The 20th Century is over. It's cartels, alliances, blocs, ententes,axes, pacts and leagues that were the parrying opponents of it's considerably violent 100 years.....are of diminishing relevance.
The enemy emerging in the form of Radical Islam.... and it's goal of a Caliphate.....will change history.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
AWESOME TOPIC VAGABOND!!!

Personally I believe Syria is next. Because of the arrogant Assad regime and their refusal to step up border control along Iraq. and Condolezza Rice said yesterday she wouldn't rule out military action against Iran or Syria. and some people believe there are special ops going on in Syria (hit and get missions). Bush might authorize an airstrike against Syria and then if things get ugly send in the troops. but remember Iran has a partnership with Syria, so Iran might attack US forces in Iraq. and then any action against Iran would involve the Russo-China axis.

But i believe the Bush admin. fears an attack on Syria might bring in a leader they can not control. Assad fears the US military...so does Iran. If i were Iran i'd be scared because the USA night stick there boot in my butt because they are literally my neioghbors in Iraq/Afghan. Israel will bomb the Iranian reactors......Iran won't do nothing thu. just talk about death to israel and america as always.

My top 5 nations who are due for a US strike:
1. Syria
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. Somalia (to finish the 1993 mission)



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nb25
AWESOME TOPIC VAGABOND!!!

Personally I believe Syria is next. Because of the arrogant Assad regime and their refusal to step up border control along Iraq. and Condolezza Rice said yesterday she wouldn't rule out military action against Iran or Syria. and some people believe there are special ops going on in Syria (hit and get missions). Bush might authorize an airstrike against Syria and then if things get ugly send in the troops. but remember Iran has a partnership with Syria, so Iran might attack US forces in Iraq. and then any action against Iran would involve the Russo-China axis.

But i believe the Bush admin. fears an attack on Syria might bring in a leader they can not control. Assad fears the US military...so does Iran. If i were Iran i'd be scared because the USA night stick there boot in my butt because they are literally my neioghbors in Iraq/Afghan. Israel will bomb the Iranian reactors......Iran won't do nothing thu. just talk about death to israel and america as always.

My top 5 nations who are due for a US strike:
1. Syria
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. Somalia (to finish the 1993 mission)


What Russo-Chinese axis, these latest wargames were nothing then propaganda and posturing. Russia and China are natural enemies over the coming years, hell there are probably more Chinese in Siberia then Russians now, and the balance is shifting more every year.

As for Israel, I wish they could strike at Irans nuclear capabilities. However, I just dont see how? The US wont let them fly over iraq, as most Iraqis hate Israel, this would cause unrest. The only country that would allow the flyover, maybe, is Turkey. The Turks certainly hate Iran. However it is my opinion that Turkey will soon loose the moderate governments of the past 80+ years. Islamists are very powerful in Turkey and gainig strength. allowing Israel flyover, might tip the balance against the moderates.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Great writing, Vagabond, Thank You.

I think this outfit has a strong influence on American policy:
RAND National Defense Research Institute

And I think that the Department of Defense efforts with computerized Global War Gaming, has a strong influence on decisions made. (Not many links available to that.)

And I don't like over-simplifying a complex subject, but it's all about third-world countries, and who will control, dominate, assist, and/or be friends with them; for the benefit of strategic location, natural resources, and balance of power in the future. And that's what first-world countries do.

So if I took a good guess, I'd say that China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, have shown interests in the nations of this region, same as some of them did with African nations, 20 years ago. And in the future, again with South American nations. And so will the United States; all of the above. If everyone else is interested, the United States will show interest too.

And the Syria or Iran issue, Iran's population is 3 times that of Syria. Iran's GDP and budget is 8 times bigger. And not only was there a defense pact made between Syria and Iran in 2005, but there was an older defense pact, between Syria, Iraq, and Iran, back in 1990-1991. www.fas.org...

I foresee a long term use of Iraq and Afganistan as areas of forward basing for aircraft and troops. As long as there are bases there, Iran and Syria will do nothing. I would also think that an airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities hasn't happened, because no one really knows where they are.

Articles on war-gaming Iran:
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.nationalreview.com...
www.truthout.org... (copy of Atlantic Monthly article)



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathstar1000

Originally posted by nb25
AWESOME TOPIC VAGABOND!!!

Personally I believe Syria is next. Because of the arrogant Assad regime and their refusal to step up border control along Iraq. and Condolezza Rice said yesterday she wouldn't rule out military action against Iran or Syria. and some people believe there are special ops going on in Syria (hit and get missions). Bush might authorize an airstrike against Syria and then if things get ugly send in the troops. but remember Iran has a partnership with Syria, so Iran might attack US forces in Iraq. and then any action against Iran would involve the Russo-China axis.

But i believe the Bush admin. fears an attack on Syria might bring in a leader they can not control. Assad fears the US military...so does Iran. If i were Iran i'd be scared because the USA night stick there boot in my butt because they are literally my neioghbors in Iraq/Afghan. Israel will bomb the Iranian reactors......Iran won't do nothing thu. just talk about death to israel and america as always.

My top 5 nations who are due for a US strike:
1. Syria
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. Somalia (to finish the 1993 mission)


What Russo-Chinese axis, these latest wargames were nothing then propaganda and posturing. Russia and China are natural enemies over the coming years, hell there are probably more Chinese in Siberia then Russians now, and the balance is shifting more every year.

As for Israel, I wish they could strike at Irans nuclear capabilities. However, I just dont see how? The US wont let them fly over iraq, as most Iraqis hate Israel, this would cause unrest. The only country that would allow the flyover, maybe, is Turkey. The Turks certainly hate Iran. However it is my opinion that Turkey will soon loose the moderate governments of the past 80+ years. Islamists are very powerful in Turkey and gainig strength. allowing Israel flyover, might tip the balance against the moderates.


nope the war games were in my opinion to scare tawian and stick it in the US's face that they are a world power.
when iran switches to the euro......say hello to occupation by the USA



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nb25

Originally posted by deathstar1000

Originally posted by nb25
AWESOME TOPIC VAGABOND!!!

Personally I believe Syria is next. Because of the arrogant Assad regime and their refusal to step up border control along Iraq. and Condolezza Rice said yesterday she wouldn't rule out military action against Iran or Syria. and some people believe there are special ops going on in Syria (hit and get missions). Bush might authorize an airstrike against Syria and then if things get ugly send in the troops. but remember Iran has a partnership with Syria, so Iran might attack US forces in Iraq. and then any action against Iran would involve the Russo-China axis.

But i believe the Bush admin. fears an attack on Syria might bring in a leader they can not control. Assad fears the US military...so does Iran. If i were Iran i'd be scared because the USA night stick there boot in my butt because they are literally my neioghbors in Iraq/Afghan. Israel will bomb the Iranian reactors......Iran won't do nothing thu. just talk about death to israel and america as always.

My top 5 nations who are due for a US strike:
1. Syria
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. Somalia (to finish the 1993 mission)


What Russo-Chinese axis, these latest wargames were nothing then propaganda and posturing. Russia and China are natural enemies over the coming years, hell there are probably more Chinese in Siberia then Russians now, and the balance is shifting more every year.

As for Israel, I wish they could strike at Irans nuclear capabilities. However, I just dont see how? The US wont let them fly over iraq, as most Iraqis hate Israel, this would cause unrest. The only country that would allow the flyover, maybe, is Turkey. The Turks certainly hate Iran. However it is my opinion that Turkey will soon loose the moderate governments of the past 80+ years. Islamists are very powerful in Turkey and gainig strength. allowing Israel flyover, might tip the balance against the moderates.


nope the war games were in my opinion to scare tawian and stick it in the US's face that they are a world power.
when iran switches to the euro......say hello to occupation by the USA


The US will never occupy Iran without very good justification. No, one in the states would support it. Iraq was after Sptember 11, everyone in the states wanted something done and Afganistan was too easy. Now there would be no support for such a war. Attack Irans nuc capabilities maybe, occupy the country, no way.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I'm not too concerned about the Russians calling our bluff in Iran (because, honestly, with G-dub at the helm, I don't think anyone's under the impression that we're bluffing, least of all me). The Russians and Chinese would almost certainly put forward a separating force before the fact if we rattled the saber at Kazakhstan or Tajikistan.

I do think that Iran might try to bum rush us if we went after Syria, because Syria falling would severely diminish the tenability of Iran's strategic position, which relies chiefly on it's control of the Strait of Hormuz. Syria would probably not reciprocate if we went after Iran first, but going after Iran first is necessarily a riskier proposition.

Somalia is a good point. I could see that happening down the road too if my ideas about Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda proved correct. Throw Eritrea into the mix too perhaps (I sometimes forget about them since they have only been on the map for so long and are kind of hidden away on a strip of coast). I believe that because I think the object of going to East Africa is to build ties between India and American client states, not unlike the objective of going to Afghanistan to make way for the Unocal gas pipeline. (which was planned before Sept 11th, but depending on your conspiratorial leanings, may or may not have happened if not for 9/11).

Saudi, I really don't see happening, but if we were going to do it, I think we'd have to back a coup there to install a radical regime first. If Saudi went ultra-rightwing, started a militarization program, and became a potential threat to the rest of the peninsula, the American people would back the idea of sending a small force to reinstall the House of Saud, and then, naturally, the war would escalate and it wouldn't just be a "small force" we were sending- next thing you'd know we'd be having the "should we or shouldn't we" debate over flattening Mecca in the same fashion as Najaf.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Just for the record, the word out of the last bilderberg meeting was, that Syria would be next, so ill go with that one



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I tend to go for the answer that most easily and obviously completed the puzzle. Why the places we did? I think Peak Oil converges into the answer. Keeping oil in dollars and securing american access to our nations most vital resource. Its the only thing that explains all the invasion points, expenditures, methodology and persistance.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I do think that Iran might try to bum rush us if we went after Syria, because Syria falling would severely diminish the tenability of Iran's strategic position, which relies chiefly on it's control of the Strait of Hormuz. Syria would probably not reciprocate if we went after Iran first, but going after Iran first is necessarily a riskier proposition.

I beg to differ on that supposition, Iran knows that rushing us when we are in Syria would be suicide and neither would it weaken our strike capability in any way, as we could always "glass" them anyday nor would it grant them any great strategic advantage. I feel the most probable think Iran would do is rapidly make powerfull friends. The only people in the region are Pakistan, India and Russia who could directly assist it militarily. The chinese are too far off and they could not be able to offer much assistence even if they wanted too, which would be highly irregular for the chinese to do so. The Pakistani's wouldnt dare as the US would let the Indians have them, the Indians have the manpower but not have the will as recent indian leaning towards the US would suggest - so again unlikely, the Russians would be the only logical choice. I feel the iranians would make certain sacrifies and let the Russians land a base in Western Iran (I imagine that Putin would jump at that opportunity) or might sell oil and gas blocks ot china in western Iran. Either way that would bring the Iran issue to a stand still as invading it would mean coming face to face with the russians or the chinese which the US cannot afford right now without the "glass". To counter such a move and more importantly the political ramifications, we must play it wise, i think we should have a muslim nation do the invasion on our behalf and we provide assistence or some such. The most likely choice for this is Pakistan- which is already unco-operative and antipathic to the war on terror. To get their support the secatarian card must be played and we must instigate the fundamentalist in NW pakistan against the powerfull Ayotullahs in Iran, throw some fuel ( aka assasinations) and then we have our little blood war going. This violence will make the russians and the chinese rethink Iran and at some later juncture it would be possible to pull of a Spetznaz Kabul style takeover without the American blood and napalm going to waste.
But the problem still remains of who will rule later, to this I think the US should enlist the support of the Aga Khan and other more mordern and liberal Shia leaders so as to give adequate legitemacy. The local population will welcome in open arms greater liberalization especially with the Aga Khan leading it, also as most Iranians now are educated and more travelled they would ,ost likely support this as they woulld not feel that it is the US that has taken them over but the Aga Khan.
This is what I think.



Somalia is a good point. I could see that happening down the road too if my ideas about Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda proved correct. Throw Eritrea into the mix too perhaps

I think Africa is a good idea too and the sooner the US acheives dominance here the more secure America's future would be 100 or 150 years down the line. Africa is going to be the next Asia with their vast untapped resources, the continent would be bitterly contested in the future. already chinese and indian presence in Africa is growing as they realize its potential. The Us needs to establish a permanent center of operations in Africa to have effective dominance in the future, this could be possible by cutting back some bases in asia and setting them up in Africa. Also as African warlords control most of africas resources, acquiring these resources will be convenient. The main aim of US strategy in africa should be to obtain total dominance in high resource regions of East Africa through corruption and other covert means. Going humanitarian here would be a folly just as in 1993.
Also Africa is on the verge of a population explosion that would increase the number of poor and unemployed young men which makes it ideal place of operation of Al Qaeda- The NextGen.


Saudi, I really don't see happening, but if we were going to do it, I think we'd have to back a coup there to install a radical regime first. If Saudi went ultra-rightwing, started a militarization program, and became a potential threat to the rest of the peninsula, the American people would back the idea of sending a small force to reinstall the House of Saud,

Saudi Arabia I am agree would be a BAD idea. And if taken over the Wahabi's would finish the Saud family in days before cashing in all their petro dollars at the arms dealer. This would drag the US effort into a kind of crusade as Mecca is holy land. The political ramifications of this move would be earth shattering and the US would not be hard pressed to sustain its dominance globally.
Rather than direct military intervention the most advantageous proposition I think is if their is internal strife between the wahabi's or between the wahabi's and the other fundamentalist clerics. This would strengthen the Saud family and thus make it easier to destroy the wahabi's and the fundamentalist clerics by strategic operations rather than face the wrath of the entire muslim world. As for checking the influece of the Saud family, the constant threat of remanent wahabi fundamentalists should be credible deterrence against any unwarranted unilateralism by the Al Saud family. Also as most of the Saud family fortunes are overseas crippling them monetarily should also be entertained.

Great thread BTW Vagabound!




[edit on 21-10-2005 by IAF101]


NR

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Wow, and you guys keep thinking why nobody is on your side right now? this makes me laugh because first off all you can try and list all the countrys you want to invade like sought africa,Syria,Iran,Saudi arabia,Somolia etc... but i like to know where would you get all the money and the troops for that kind of manpower? I know you guys cant attack Iran because with Russia and China on the way how could you do such things? remember when bush even rejected all of Isreals plan on an airstrike and even an attack? . You can go after Syria and will have to stay there for another 5-10 years like your doin with Iraq but you can never do with Iran because we did sign a military pact with Russia and China so if you guys try and touch us or even come close than it will involve those two countrys. Like i said Vagabond you can stay there typing all day and all night about how Iran is going to get attacked or blowned up ( nuclear facilitys ) but you and everybody else knows such a thing would never ever happen.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Who's next?


Iran and Syria for sure.

Syria is definitely the number one target after Iraq. They openly support, fund, and train terrorists fighting coalition forces in Iraq. Syria is on the brink of a popular uprising from within; the house of Assad is in a precarious position for sure. I feel that the current terror supporting regime in Syria will be taken care of from within. I’m certain western "influence" will be part of that as well.

Iran is just trouble; they don’t even attempt to hide it like Syria does. Iran is dangerous because they openly support terrorism, openly denounce the west, and openly include terror in their own doctrines and operations. The fact that they are pursuing nuclear weapons and the current regime seeks a world governed by Shari’a law makes them even more of a threat.

My predictions?

Syria:

I predict a western backed internal coop in Syria; it’s already started on some levels for certain. I feel Syria will be kept quiet and subdued without war. BUT, an attack will be inevitable if the coop doesn’t pan out.

Iran:

Iran is cruising for a bruising, they simply don’t get it. The west, and I don’t mean just the USA, will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Period. Iran’s current ruling entity is unstable at the very least, possibly even out right mad. Iran simply cannot handle nuclear weapons. I feel the Iran issue will come to a head before the end of 2006 and Iran will be given an ultimatum by the UN. Iran of course will reject the ultimatum because they feel they have divine backing from Allah. Shortly after the Mullahs tell the west to go pi$$ off, the air raids will start. Iran will be bombarded from the skies for at least a month before any real ground activity would commence (if at all). After the air assault basically nullifies Iran’s offensive and defensive military capabilities, they will be given another ultimatum. Iran of course will tell the west to go screw again and then the real war will begin. Iran’s friends, Russia and China, will avoid helping too much, and certainly not militarily, as they value (need) the west’s money more than it does Iran’s oil.

Its too bad we cant get the Bush camp to turn on its best buddies the Saudi’s, because they need a spanking too.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
I beg to differ on that supposition, Iran knows that rushing us when we are in Syria would be suicide and neither would it weaken our strike capability in any way


That actually depends on the way we go about the invasion. If we go from Iraq, and especially if we follow what I call "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (using 1/2 as many troops as it would take to win in the worst case scenario) then Iran has the capability to temporarily cut our supply lines in the gulf and inflict casualties anywhere from the high hundreds to low thousands (conservative estimate). Their odds of winning are slim to none, but it's their best chance to 1. Slow down the war. and 2. Inflict casualties. The general concensus, right or wrong, seems to be that the way to survive against America is to protract the war and inflict casualties. I think that once we go to Syria they'll assume that we're creating an alternate route to Iraq so that we can invade Iran and not worry about the gulf being closed on us.
The answer, quite simply, is that if we go to Syria we have to go from Turkey or by sea- not entirely, but we have to open a second front so that we aren't reliant on the Gulf for our line of supply. I would think it unwise to even have many ships in the gulf while invading Syria. If we do that, as well as use enough troops to defend Iraq at the same time, Iran is between a rock and a hard place and probably won't mess with us.
My angle is basically that America is trained and equipped to deal with just about any threat in the world, but training and equipment are not fool proof unless they are employed in a strategically sound way. This is a crucial lesson of Vietnam- political meddling in military decisions equals bad strategy and reduced effectiveness.

As for "glassing" Iran, I don't think they're really afraid of that. I'm not saying we wouldn't, although I find it rather unlikely, I'm just saying that nobody outside thinks we will, and so it's really not a factor in their decision making. Besides, if we were to do that we had better hit all of Iran's chemical facilities, or they'll gas our troops and possibly our allies in Israel and Turkey while they're at it. They aren't that far out from having the capability to excercise similar deterence against a large portion of NATO.


I feel the most probable think Iran would do is rapidly make powerfull friends. The only people in the region are Pakistan, India and Russia who could directly assist it militarily.


Pervez Musharaff is our lapdog. He's only in power because when he executed his coup he called Anthony Zinni, then CinC of Centcom, and explained himself and all but asked permission. The ISI is another story, but short of General Musharaff getting iced, I don't think Pakistan is a real worry. Don't forget that they had recognized the Taliban government, yet did not intervene against us. India isn't likely to go at it with us for the sake of Muslims, IMHO. They've got an economy to worry about and to the best of my knowledge they don't stand to lose anything by Iran changing hands. At the same time, if they have any reservations at all, I'm sure America would be willing to buy them off with natural gas, rebuilding contracts, or possibly even support for their bid to get on the UN Security Council.
The Russians are an odd matter. As fearsome as they sometimes act, they seem to know their place. There is no way in heck that they'd tollerate us moving into the former soviet republics of Central Asia, but I really doubt they'll have the fire in their belly to lose a war to America over Iran. They've been busily knocking off leaders right and left, from poisoning to "natural gas leaks" etc etc, trying to counter the US attempts to rig elections and turn their neighbors against them. It's a covert battle, and I don't think either side really wants to go hot, because both sides know that America would mop the floor with conventional Russian forces and the Russians would have to threaten nuclear to save face. Remember Kosovo? What did the Russians do about that?

Really the only nation which has ever showed the guts to get in there and mix it up with the USA on behalf of a little guy is China. If anyone is going to test us, it will be them, but as you point out, they're too far away to move men and equipment in sufficent quantity and timely manner. The minute they tried the USAF would see to it that their wasn't a road, rail, ship, or plane at their disposal anywhere along the route.

Iran's best bet, if push comes to shove, 1. To acquire a nuke, probably from NK or the ISI. They'll have to do a good job of hiding it though. 2. To acquire additional scramjet missiles from Russia (which Russia would probably give them) and attempt to catch the US Navy off guard, possibly in a home or neutral port somewhere. 3. To attempt Chemical blackmail. 4. To execute a series of large scale successfuly terrorist attacks inside of the United States and threaten to continue indefinately unless peace is made (I don't see what would be so difficult about this- I'm quite confident that anyone with half a brain could figure out how to all but cripple the city of Los Angeles single-handedly, but since the terrorists aren't doing it, one is lead to believe that there's more to it than meets the eye).

As far as getting Muslim help, that would be the hot setup, but I can't see it happening. I think the best bet would be to play Saudi Arabia against Iran the same way we played them against Iraq in '91- tell them they're about to be invaded and show them evidence (even if it's fake evidence). We'd still have to do most of the work really; the Saudis could offer a little here and there, and a few grunts, but loyalty to an American cause would be a problem unless we sold it very well. Pakistan can't even hold their Western territory, much less invade Iran in particularly successful fashion.




I think Africa is a good idea too and the sooner the US acheives dominance here the more secure America's future would be 100 or 150 years down the line.

The main aim of US strategy in africa should be to obtain total dominance in high resource regions of East Africa through corruption and other covert means. Going humanitarian here would be a folly just as in 1993.



I have to disagree here. Punking people has a funny way of resulting in ugly backlash. I think the best way to get somebody to work for you is to trick him into thinking that he works for himself. That means that we have to show them results. I'm not advocating the "go in, hand out some MREs, and expect undying loyalty" strategy. What I'm advocating goes like this:
1. Send troops in to support the government or warlord of your choice. Disarm the factions and control the borders to stop the fighting.
2. Subsidize local food production- get their population working and fed at the same time.
3. Provide tax incentives for American companies to invest, but require them to employ locals, including a quota for locals in management. First these companies will be building infrastructure- canals, aquaducts, roads, bridges, power plants, communications systems, what have you. Once that infrastructure is in place, mining and manufacturing become real possibilities.
4. Create economic communities- Country number 1 has rivers and geothermal vents that can generate power. Country number 2 has very fertile ground but needs an irrigation infrastructure. Country number 3 has tons of minerals. Country number 4 has a huge population, and very little for them to do. No sweat- the people from Country 4 are employed by American contractors to build infrastructure in the other nations while nations 2 produces food for them all under American subsidies. Once the infrastructure is up the subsidies can stop and you've got a nice trade of power, minerals, food, and manufactured goods between these nations, which the surplus of which can be sold abroad quite cheaply.

And viola, you've stabilized economically important areas and won their respect and loyalty. How will anyone rip them from your side? Before you came they starved and suffered under warlords. After you showed up the war stopped, they got a job, they ate well, and they bought a microwave. Nobody is going to be able to subvert that country away from you, and the government can't turn on you either because their people love you.

The other nice thing about this is that when your allies are viable in their own right, they can actually do stuff for you. Suppose that we make modern industrial nations in East Africa, and then there is a problem with Libya. It's not just America invading- 4 or 5 African nations taking the intiative and their ally America just backs them up.


Great thread BTW Vagabound!

[edit on 21-10-2005 by IAF101]


Thanks!



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
Wow, and you guys keep thinking why nobody is on your side right now? this makes me laugh because first off all you can try and list all the countrys you want to invade


Who said that I wanted to invade them??? I thought this thread was about figuring out what the heck our government is up to, not about making a shoping list for wars.
Just goes to show you, believing is seeing. When a person wants to see warmongers, he'll see warmongers.



I know you guys cant attack Iran because with Russia and China on the way how could you do such things?


1. Because in any conventional confrontation the US would grind Russia into a fine powder, which G-dub would probably try to snort, and be very disappointed when he realized it wasn't coc aine.

2. Because Russia knows number 1 and isn't going to mess with us. The Russians, infact most of the world, have at this point proven that America can do just about anything it wants, even if we are wrong, and they don't have the guts to draw the line. I do not say this for the sake of bragging necessarily, because I think this is very dangerous. I would feel safer in a world where I knew that the governments of the free world were willing to make a stand, even against a nation as powerful as the USA. In that since, I actually wish that Russia did have the guts to stand up to us.

3. Because no two nuclear nations have ever gone to war. Russia and the US aren't going to start now. In the post-nuclear age, "Tactics is (still) getting there the firstest with the mostest", as General Forrest put it. Whoever gets there first will not be pushed out, for fear of starting a larger war.


Like i said Vagabond you can stay there typing all day and all night about how Iran is going to get attacked or blowned up ( nuclear facilitys ) but you and everybody else knows such a thing would never ever happen.


I didn't say that it WILL happen, I said that I suspect it as being quite plausible. I didn't even say that it necessarily SHOULD happen (although I certainly don't have any strong feelings against the idea). I simply laid out the motives and possibilities as I see them.
I can't imagine how everyone "knows such a thing would never happen" though, because last time I checked it was practically a foregone conclusion in the minds of many Americans, and many of the Marines who I served with.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If we go from Iraq, and especially if we follow what I call "Rumsfeld Doctrine" (using 1/2 as many troops as it would take to win in the worst case scenario) then Iran has the capability to temporarily cut our supply lines in the gulf and inflict casualties anywhere from the high hundreds to low thousands (conservative estimate). Their odds of winning are slim to none, but it's their best chance to 1. Slow down the war. and 2. Inflict casualties.

From the past two 'skirmishes' the US has had in the region, I think it would be fair to assume that we would go in hard with the 'death from above' routine and once crippled we send in the infantry to mop up after the air force. That would imply that the number of casualities would not be significantly high unless the Iranians are planning a guerrila welcomeing party but even then it would be akin to Iraq were suffecient experience has been gained by the army.
As you've said to slow down the war, wouldnt attacking American Forces from the rear enrage america further and thus America comming down more heavily on Iran than it would have if it did not?? Maybe even compel America to go nuclear due to casulaties or shortages ?


I think that once we go to Syria they'll assume that we're creating an alternate route to Iraq so that we can invade Iran and not worry about the gulf being closed on us.

Isnt the general route right now to send in ships through the Suez to Saudi Arabia and then truck them across Kuwait and into Iraq? Then by taking out Syria that route would be shortened only slightly, instead of passing the Suez we could unload them in Isreal and again truck them to Iraq.
But the problem in this route is that if Syria is invaded local resistence would be extreemly high, even greater than Iraq, so trucking it across Syria would be hazardous at best and to smother this resistence would take considerable time(as shown in Iraq) thereby reducing the utility of the route even longer.
wouldnt it be best to utilize our resources in Asia more, than considering to haul it through the mediteranian and then through half the middle east ?
Or best case would be to set up assembly centers for knock down parts in Iraq itself, that way it generates local employment and serves our cause ?



I would think it unwise to even have many ships in the gulf while invading Syria.

Do you think that the Iranian navy could pose such a considerable threat to the US Navy in the Gulf ? As far as I know the Iranian navy is mostly littoral and isnt intended to strike carrier formations or for that matter any serious strike capability.


As for "glassing" Iran, I don't think they're really afraid of that. I'm not saying we wouldn't, although I find it rather unlikely, I'm just saying that nobody outside thinks we will, and so it's really not a factor in their decision making.

Why do you think the Iranians would not fear uclear weapons ?? would our use of nuclear weapons give them suffecient mileage internationally to make to world force our advance ?
It may give Iran suffecient international mileage but with major european powers in tow, we could probably defelct most criticism especially from the rest of the disgruntled. The Russians and the Chinese would especially be on edge as they will consider that the US doesnt necessarily hold back on using nukes to win decisively.
Another point to ponder would be that Bush has detracted from the nuclear test ban treaty so does that imply that the US is getting ready to incorporate nuclear weapons more strategically in the armed forces ?
I would think so.


Besides, if we were to do that we had better hit all of Iran's chemical facilities, or they'll gas our troops and possibly our allies in Israel and Turkey while they're at it. They aren't that far out from having the capability to excercise similar deterence against a large portion of NATO.

I think it would be NATO who would strike First and would pick their targets well, also with US air superiority it wouldnt be too difficult to do.
Even if the Iranians did get in a quick one, most if not all US forces are equipped to handle chemical and biological warfare as they hoped to expect in IRAQ.
Also concerning Iran striking Israel, the israelies held out pretty well against Saddam during Desert strom(considering that the Iraqi military was the 4th largest at that time) and they have gotten only much better plus they would have to get past the US air defenses and anti missile batteries first. Maybe a couple would actually hit Israel but that would only force them to retaliate and maybe nuke Iran themselves, which in my opinion would be perfect for the US as it would save the US much political pressure. Moreover the world would expect such lethal force from the Israelies.



The Russians are an odd matter. As fearsome as they sometimes act, they seem to know their place.
because both sides know that America would mop the floor with conventional Russian forces and the Russians would have to threaten nuclear to save face. Remember Kosovo? What did the Russians do about that?

I agree that recently Putin has been very quite recently but that doesnt prove that they arent out to sabotage Americas plans. The strengthening of links between china and russia also the so called Shanghai Group are a disconcerting trend that Russia follows. Though Putin is reticent, he is extreemly shrewd and as you say may sell the Iranians nukes or other high tech military equipment so that could cause problems.
When I mentioned that the Iranians would get Russia into Iran, I didnt mean that they would stick up for the Iranians but rather make things difficult for the US. They may for instance secure a base and refuse to cooperate with the US during the invasion and the US would be carefull not to 'accidently' cause any damage to the Russians as that would bring in unwanted international pressure. I think if the Russians did set up in Iran it would be extreemly difficult to extricate them from there as not only would this give Russia a foot in the door because of the great strategic value, by access to the Indian Ocean but also to snoop in on the US in the middle east.


Iran's best bet, if push comes to shove, 1. To acquire a nuke, probably from NK or the ISI. They'll have to do a good job of hiding it though.
4. To execute a series of large scale successfuly terrorist attacks inside of the United States and

When you say NK, it would mean the Chinese as they are the ones who actually pull the strings in NK and the ISI could do it but with the Pakistani scientist AK Khan caught selling nukes, the US would be watching pakistan very closely. It could also be possible that some central Asian former soviet country could also give them a nuke. Even if they get a decent nuke the delivery systems would be another matter, i dont think the Iranians have a delivery system that could potentially harm the EU or Isreal with a nuke.

As for executing a series of terrorist strike in the US, the Iranians wouldnt be capable of doing so as they dont have the network AL Qaeda has and I doubt BinLaden and Iran are in good terms.


As far as getting Muslim help, that would be the hot setup, but I can't see it happening. I think the best bet would be to play Saudi Arabia against Iran the same way we played them against Iraq in '91

I seriously doubt SA would get mixed up against Iran as their is enough pressure against the Saud family from the Wahabi's as it is for continuing to support the US but to ask them now to help against Iran would be a suicidal for the Saud family, as the Wahabi's would raise a huge hue and cry against the Saud's for attacking a muslim nation.
But your right they would never do more than hem and haw and would leave most of the work to the US if the did actually get involved.


Pakistan can't even hold their Western territory, much less invade Iran in particularly successful fashion.

When I ment getting the Pakistani's over at to Iran, I ment that to incite the sunni fundamentalists in the NW pakistan against the Shia's to their north. But this would mean a series of assasinations and bombings on both sides.
If this comes through the Iranians would be facing Kashmir style of insurgent terrorism from the NW Pakistan making them commit more forces to that region and thereby straining relations with Pakistan.



And viola, you've stabilized economically important areas and won their respect and loyalty. How will anyone rip them from your side? Before you came they starved and suffered under warlords. After you showed up the war stopped, they got a job, they ate well, and they bought a microwave.

This is a good strategy but you forget one important thing. Most nations in Africa are muslims who are surrounded by Christian African nations. So to get any such group of nations together would be very difficult as their is great animisity between them.
Also isnt this strategy of going in and setting up their nation a bit like the Saudi Arabian Story when Gulf Oil went in and struck oil instantly converting them form nomadic bedouins to oil rich fundamentalists. When they didnt have food to eat religion wasnt a big issue but now that they do religion has become their main focus. By doing the same in Africa, even if it is at a slower pace wouldnt the fundamentalists drag them away any way ?
Or it could also be that if we left them as it were the fundamentalists could, as they are right now, promising food money etc in exchange for them fighting for the Al Qaeda.
I find both ends of the spectrum to be dangerous, some middle path would be the best but I agree that some modicum of development should be there with the introduction of democracy.
Also their is the concern of the Chinese, the Indians and the rest who seek oil to come in our way and the chinese can sell trinkets in far greater numbers than the US could, the US would have to keep that in mind as well.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
From the past two 'skirmishes' the US has had in the region, I think it would be fair to assume that we would go in hard with the 'death from above' routine and once crippled we send in the infantry to mop up after the air force. That would imply that the number of casualities would not be significantly high


I'm reminded of an incident during the initial invasion of Iraq which most people don't even remember. The 1st Cav was about half way to Baghdad, significantly ahead of most supporting units. A sand storm was hindering the effectiveness of close air support and had grounded most of our choppers. There was a report, which turned out to be inaccurate, that a large force of Iraqi armored vehicles, numbering in the hundreds had moved out from Baghdad to meet 1st Cav. The story only lasted a short time before it turned out to be just civilian vehicles, and not nearly as many as reported. I was still a little on edge though. I was reminded of how Chad had taken on the Pan-African Legion with technicals armed with recoilless rifles.

Luckily nothing came of the event- the Iraqis ran a soviet-style military wherein infantry forms the spearhead of the assuault and armor usually exploits breaches or is kept back for counter-attacks. Their doctrine and their centralized command structure did not lend itself to that kind of dynamic action.

Had the Iraqis taken the fight to us and succeeded in destroying critical assets, including taking out a whole division, not only would they have scored a very visible victory in the media, but they would have slowed down our advance by a couple of weeks perhaps.


As you've said to slow down the war, wouldnt attacking American Forces from the rear enrage america further and thus America comming down more heavily on Iran than it would have if it did not?? Maybe even compel America to go nuclear due to casulaties or shortages ?



I don't think the Iranians believe that we will go nuclear, as I have said. Whether we would or not, if they don't believe we would then they will act accordinly. Iran is in a wondeful position to slow down a war on Syria. Deployment will take 3-6 months.

Suppose that when we start deploying they launch a surprise attack with missiles on our ships- sink a couple, force the rest to give up on entering the gulf. Now we've got to find a new place to go in. Either Saudi or Turkey. So that's a few weeks to get permission and send the ships. Meanwhile Iran and Syria can attack Northern Iraq from both sides, converging on Mosul. We reinforce with light infantry, get into a block-to-block brawl there trying to keep them from winning the city, which if they win, gives them a straight shot at Baghdad in a very narrow corridor where our more mobile forces can't outmanuever them, and they wont be facing quite as much armor.
So now one of five things has to happen.
1. Turkey steps up to the plate and proves its loyalty to NATO by attacking from the North to break the seige on Mosul. They may try to occupy Iraqi-kurdistan afterwards.
2. Israel invades Syria to relieve the pressure from the East while we do one of the follwing things:
3. America is allowed to attack from Turkey.
4. America makes an amphious assault on South-Eastern iran, attacks West to gain control of the straight of Hormuz, and reopens the Gulf (probably very bloody)
5. America attacks from Israel into Syria and pushes right through to Iraq.

The most likely of those scenarios, as I see it, is that Turkey allows US forces to attack from their soil, and possibly even goes with us. The result is that we've been in action for a couple of weeks, we've taken perhaps a couple of thousand casualties, and we haven't even set foot on Syrian soil, and we have to fight on two fronts at once, meaning we have to deploy additional troops, and we have to do it without operating from the Persian Gulf. Iran can't really hope to win, but they can hope to make America too gunshy for a long occupation, and maybe even inspire other nations in the region to give us trouble. The world isn't like Americans- we have very short attention spans. 4 years is an eternity for us. The only thing these people really have is time (and oil). If they're looking at a situation where perhaps if they do well, 20 years from now America won't be able to set foot anywhere in their region, they'll go for it.



Isnt the general route right now to send in ships through the Suez to Saudi Arabia and then truck them across Kuwait and into Iraq? Then by taking out Syria that route would be shortened only slightly, instead of passing the Suez we could unload them in Isreal and again truck them to Iraq.


How much do we trust Egypt and Saudi Arabia? What happens if the time for war comes and Saudi says no? What happens if Egypt refuses us passage through the Suez on the grounds that they have a right to enforce international law by deny9ing us passage through an international water way? Afterall, Egypt isn't that comfortable with us right now. They're on our list for "democratization" and they know it. I would be shocked if Egypt and Saudi both whistled a happy tune while we attack Iran and Syria- at some point they're gonna have to say "hey, I wonder if that's gonna happen to us some day?".


But the problem in this route is that if Syria is invaded local resistence would be extreemly high, even greater than Iraq, so trucking it across Syria would be hazardous at best and to smother this resistence would take considerable time(as shown in Iraq) thereby reducing the utility of the route even longer.


That's not a bad point, but the stuff that can't be airlifted in a timely manner (tanks for example) doesn't have to use the major routes which go through cities. All you need is traversible ground between the sea and the target area. That's also another great reason for Iran to make their move when we go into Syria- better to take us on before we've freed up our forces from Syria or pacified resistance along a potential supply line.



Do you think that the Iranian navy could pose such a considerable threat to the US Navy in the Gulf ? As far as I know the Iranian navy is mostly littoral and isnt intended to strike carrier formations or for that matter any serious strike capability.


Not the Iranian Navy- Iranian cruise missiles which can be fired from the shore. Some scramjet missiles have ranges between 80 and 120km. Furthermore, my uncle has told me that the Navy actually does have a bit of a problem with small fast craft. He said when he was in the gulf that iraqis used to do "drivebys" in speedboats. In the wargames before Iraq, Paul Van Ripper used USS Cole style attacks to sink the invasion force before it ever got landed.



Why do you think the Iranians would not fear uclear weapons ?? would our use of nuclear weapons give them suffecient mileage internationally to make to world force our advance ?


For the same reason the Vietnamese weren't worried about us nuking Hanoi. Deterrence, American public opinion, international law- the little things that George Bush doesn't care about, but that most nations sort of expect America to pay attention to.



Forgive me for not answering everything. I'll have to get back to you later. I've been online too long already.




top topics



 
0

log in

join