'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

An abiding principle of war:

"If you kill the father, you must also kill the son."


This principle seems even more pertinent when we consider making war with cultures retatining strong "tribal' bonds, as in many middle-eastern lands.

The moral, and functional question then becomes;


"How then are we to suffer the mothers and daughters also to live, for from them will not new fathers and sons arise against us?"


Iraq is not Germany in WWII.

Iraq will not be Vietnam in the '70's.

And Iran will not be like Iraq in the 1990"s


Those who would think to conquer Iran would do themselves well to consider the above principle.


And for the sake of their souls, should they be so possessed, consider well and hard the answer to the above question.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Shroomery

Your reply is a prime example of the success of the Israel lobby inside the US.
They've spun your whole world upside down!

Ya I guess you are right. The US and Israel are the evil empires out to destroy the muslin countries of the middle east who just want to get along with everyone and live in a world of tolerance where life is valued.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Well, you're pretty close to the truth, I didn't say they were out to destroy the middle-east, although they're right on schedule for that, but atleast you got the agressors right this time.

Just take a look at the veto's by the US in the UN for israel. Just google it, it's so absurd that people devote a webpage to it, go figure. Most of the time, the US is the ONLY one voting for. Do you reckon that is because the resolution benefits the middle-east or Israel?
Heck most of the time it's just to cover up the atrocities!

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
While we're exchanging Iraqi quotes, I'd like to bring up one of my perenial favorites, from an Iraqi officer:
"At the beginning of the war, I had 61 tanks. After 60 days of bombardment, I still had 54 tanks. After 30 minutes with the M1A1, I had no tanks."

Behold, the awesomeness of the Abrams tank! Great quote.

Alot of that had to do with military tactics employed by the americans Mr. Vagabond. Plus, the US was a bit antsy in wanting to test out its new battle tanks. The M1A1 versus the Russian built T-72's.

We're talking apples and oranges here. You are suggesting that 3 days of airstrikes, compared to weeks on end in Desert Storm, at 1/3 the intensity of Desert Storm, this time in the absence of an overwhelming ground force that makes it impossible for the enemy to take the offensive, nor to threaten them with the prospect of things getting even worse, is going to have the same results as Desert Storm.

Well..in not so many words, Yes. That is what I am saying.

In Desert Storm, the Iraqis were not merely facing the prospect of being killed by bombs, but they were also facing a loss of support in the face of an impending attack by a massive force.

How long was that ground campaign? It was a massive show of force. But was it really needed? 3 days. 3 days is all it took for the ground forces. TheIraqi military positions had been pounded with 109,876 sorties over the 43-day war, with an average of 2,555 sorties per day. That was back in gulf war 1 with few laser guided weaponry. Now, imagine a similar scenario today, only with GPS guided smart bombs.

It's one thing when you lose 10-30% of your unit. Historically, that's not insurmountable. Life goes on. You stay in your hole and you take comfort in the fact that the odds say that you won't be the one who gets it.

On the other hand, when you know that it's only a matter of time before a huge force from 30 someodd nations comes to kill you, and you know that when they come you won't have communications or artillery- of course you surrender when they show up, because you know to a certainty that nobody who doesn't surrender is going to survive that battle.


America places far too much faith in air power, and I fear that one day we will pay for this dearly. The failure to correctly interpret new developments in military technology has always been responsible for the most horrific losses.

Tanks were supposed to break the stalemate in the trenches of WWI, but they hadn't been fully developed to the battlefield conditions of the time, they were not used wisely, and countermeasures were developed which enabled the Germans to maintain the stalemate despite fielding very few tanks of their own.
They redeemed themselves in WWII, only to prove almost useless in Korea and Vietnam.

More spectacular proof of the failure of technology to keep up with and be applied correctly to new tactical realities came at the battle of Fada, in which the Libyans lost almost 800 men, 105 T-55s and 51 BMP-1s (destroyed or captured) while the Chadians lost 3 Toyota pickup trucks and 18 men, owing to innovative employment on anti-tank weapons and superior tactics and knowledge of the terrain.

Or helicopters if you prefer.
Helicopters were supposed to render the old realities obsolete and enable us to make short work of the Vietnamese, but the Vietnamese inflicted heavy losses on our helicopters and the troops who relied on them despite a technological disadvantage.


If we keep thinking like this, one of these days we're going to gamble too much on the ability of airpower to do something it just can't do, and as a consequence we will allow ourselves to be outgunned or outmanuevered on the ground by a froce that airpower was supposed to destroy. When that happens, we can only hope that the battle it happens in does not prove to be a decisive one in the course of a war.

All in all a good post Mr.Vagabond. I hear your points and they are well taken. I have a few things I must do right now, so i cannot respond to all your points. You know how it is. Duty calls. I think we all can agree that another war, just seems unacceptable. I think there are some interesting circumstances surrounding a possible conflict with Iran, dont you think?

[edit on 2-9-2007 by West Coast]

Here's my take on this fiasco..... The united states holds the leash on Israel. Israel is a dog o war and gloriously shows it's teeth as Americas attack dog. Israel is in it for the greatest story ever told and that is religious in nature. As for the excuse the US does not want Iran to have a nuke foothold within the free world is wishfull thinking.

The real reason maybe in irans desire to cash out the dollar for euros on the oil market. That will destabilize americas dollar even further and could tip the scale come this september on that big put option the market goes out with a big bang.

Why are there wars in the countries with ancient religious history.

I forgot to mention iran was on the evening news the other night showing off there new smart bomb. Wonder why the networks wanted us to see that. unless they are getting us ready for a comiing confrontation.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WorldShadow]

I don't look forward to groceries being any more expensive then they are already. If an attack should happen then gas will go up and it tends to flow into other markets. The cost of goods being shipped goes up. Travel expenses go up. Everything goes up in price. When your disabled and living on a budget like myself this can be very worrying.

I don't think anything will happen because of Russia and China but then again we are living in the most dangerous times of mankind. Maybe all those underground bases that have been built will be put into use by the elite of our nation.

Of course the rats will go to their holes. I keep remembering how Michael Moore was attempting to interview Senators near the capitol if they had any sons or daughters in Iraq, or even in the military. And how they scurried off. If my recollection is correct, only ONE senator had a son in the armed forces.
I will be honest with you. I'm tired of the killing. I'm tired of gloating rhetoric of superior power with very little dialogue on the cost of life. Call me a tree hugging looney.

Originally posted by West Coast
Alot of that had to do with military tactics employed by the americans Mr. Vagabond. Plus, the US was a bit antsy in wanting to test out its new battle tanks. The M1A1 versus the Russian built T-72's.

I agree on both counts. Certainly the M1A1 is not the end-all-be-all of weaponry anymore than any aircraft could be, and the army had a lot of incentive to make that war far more spectacular than it needed to be.

The success of the ground campaign in Desert Storm owed very much to Iraqs use of export-model hardware, outdated steel penetrator rounds, the higher training standards of American forces, outstanding tactics, and of course the psychological, logistical, and command/control damage inflicted by airpower.

Well..in not so many words, Yes. That is what I am saying.

How long was that ground campaign? It was a massive show of force. But was it really needed?

The ground campaign was not necessary. The ground force was.
Had we sent in a ground force without the air campaign, more Iraqi units would have stayed and fought and the sheer size of the engagement would have produced greater American casualties.
Had we sent in an air campaign without a sufficient ground force standing by, the Iraqis would have either dug in and bit the bullet until it became too expensive for us to continue, or else they would have advanced into Saudi Arabia and given us an ultimatum to stop or they'd destroy the oil fields.
At the very least, they certainly never would have made the retreat along the highway of death, which is what placed them out in the open in large concentrations and greatly inflated the spectacle.

I think we all can agree that another war, just seems unacceptable. I think there are some interesting circumstances surrounding a possible conflict with Iran, dont you think?

Correct. I'm particularly interested in what would happen if the Iranians initiated hostilities preemptively, or if they attempted an asymetrical defense of the Zagros range, but lets not find out and say we did.

Yes, Mr Vagabond, a good point you bring up, regarding if Iran attacked the US naval fleet pre-emptively.

Wouldn't they be within their rights to do it? If they feel that they are about to be attacked, they could launch a huge attack themselves and try to take some ships out to minimize the attack on their own country.

My personal view is that the plans and methods for the coming war are already done and signed off.

Everyone is waiting for the APEC summit in Sydney, Australia to conclude, where the leaders there will have, no doubt, some back rooms quiet chats to each other regarding the Iran issue.

When Bush flies back to the US the folowing week it wil be on.Mark my words.

By the end of the next 2 week period this will explode, our fuel prices will almost double overnight. There will be panic buying of fuel everywhere as people will expect supplies to quickly dwindle.

Food prices will go up as transport costs increase, and as fuel prices continue to rise as supplies DO run out, people will not be able to go to work, will loose jobs, will not be able to put food on the tables........riots will ensue around the suburban populace.

This will not end in 3 days, it never does. There's always an unknown "X-Factor" to armed conflict and you do not know what it is as much planning and firepower you may have until it rises up and bites you on the bumb.

Yes, Iran must be stopped, hardcore sanctions must be implemented with the support of Russia and China, aswell as supporting op[position groups within Iran. War is not, war should be a last resolve , not one planned from the start with rhetoric to fill the void in time until hostilities break out.

Why cant we all just get along????????

reply to post by Havalon


Russia will supply Iran with weapons for as long as Iranians have hard currency to pay. They will not participate in combat and they will not go against USA in this issue.

When Iran goes down, there is one less operational oil producer and oil prices will move up. This increases Russias oil and gas revenues so much that it will easily compensate any arms deals with Iran that Russia could dream of.

So actually downfall of the current Iranian regime and infrastructure is in the Kremlins best interest too.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Lets see is this Impossible?

The US Air Force is the largest and most advanced Air Force on earth. It has over 6000 manned aircraft and over 100 unmanned aircraft. Over 2000 Cruise Missiles.

The US Navy is the largest and most advanced Navy on Earth. Its has over 200 ships and 6,000 aircraft.

so were the Nazis, but look at them now their lust for dominence and power screwed them over big time.

hopefully the current US regieme will have the same fait.


also for those people that believe Iran would use nukes
are you bonkers in the head. a country that had bio and chemical weapons for decades all the sudden would use nukes.

bio and chemical weapons would keep the area/buildings intact
unlike nukes which would destroy everything.

this argument has become a joke in its self

also Iran would not risk the lives of 7million muslims
1-2 million which are israeli.

as for the US striking Iran, this isnt Iraq a third world country could have bombed the fudge out of Iraq and walk away with any losses.

Iran has teath and is persion and would stand their ground.
and the people who keep ranting on about attack Iran should be preperd for deaths of US service men (more then the amount in Iraq) in the line of duty to line the pockets of the fat cats in DC.


also i expect all the arm chair generals who support this war and are of able body to be on the front line.

Originally posted by bodrul
so were the Nazis...

The Nazis never had the largest Navy or Air force, what they had was excellent quality and leadership, even with that fool of a commander, Hitler, making military decisions...

Originally posted by bodrul
as for the US striking Iran, this isnt Iraq a third world country could have bombed the fudge out of Iraq and walk away with any losses.

Iran went to war with Iraq for nearly a decade and could not defeat it, even thought it had more forces, it suffered an estimated 500K casualties. The US decimated the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War under 43 days and within 48 hours of the ground campaign. In 2003 we defeated their military, invaded the country and took control of it withing two weeks. Both accomplishments are astounding. Even with an occupation (one of the most difficult things to do military speaking) lasting five years we have not suffered that may casualties, in context. So no, not anyone could have done that to Iraq.


In an air and naval war, the type of war likely with Iran, it would stand no chance against the US military and the result is therefore not in question.

Any losses would be minimal, acceptable and could be absorbed, the same cannot be said for Iran.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Iran went to war with Iraq for nearly a decade and could not defeat it, even thought it had more forces, it suffered an estimated 500K casualties. The US decimated the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War under 43 days and within 48 hours of the ground campaign. In 2003 we defeated their military, invaded the country and took control of it withing two weeks. Both accomplishments are astounding. Even with an occupation (one of the most difficult things to do military speaking) lasting five years we have not suffered that may casualties, in context. So no, not anyone could have done that to Iraq.

so according to you Iran is the same as it was 20 odd years ago?
same military tec, no advancements, walk over now

and you really think that casulties in Iraq wont increase when u invade a shia country which has deep religous ties.?

expect more attacks from within Iraq

and expect more in Iran if you think you can occupy the country

and i was talking about general bombing the bleep out the country not invading it

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In an air and naval war, the type of war likely with Iran, it would stand no chance against the US military and the result is therefore not in question.

didnt say they would, but they would be able to strike back before falling to the US.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Any losses would be minimal, acceptable and could be absorbed, the same cannot be said for Iran.

so you will be on the front line i expect serving your fat cats ,i mean goverment and country.

also Nazi comment the US and Nazi have one thing in common
both are aggresive



[edit on 3-9-2007 by bodrul]

Main difference between Iraq and Iran,

The Iraqi people welcomed the coalition when the invaded and removed Saddam, the Iranian's will not be supportive.

The United States is not stupid. The US generals know the Iranian army will not give up like the Iraqi army. It won't be a walk in the park.

and who will justify the killing of the jews living there happily and openly and don`t want to leave? who are MP`s in the iranian parliment? who have more synagogues outside of israel than any other country and have lived there peacefully for 3000 years?

and who`s hospital in Tehran (1 of only 4 jewish charity hospitals in the world) was recently refurbished by money from the offices of President Ahmedinejad?

There is much much more than the west and even Israel understand about Iran - wanting to give money for them to leave is an insult and one they have publically replied to (as an insult). It does show the divide between Jews around the world and those in Israel.




edit:


did you know its harder for someone to leave Israel to travel to Iran then the other way around? Israel actively puts blocks on people wanting to travel to Iran - even to see family that they left behind if they chose to emigrate away.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Harlequin]

something tells me that ww3 has already started but we just dont notice it like in ww1 where they called it the "great war" GREAT ?!?! howda hell is a war great ? looking at how many conflicts there are occuring right now, hmm could history really repeat itself ? 9/11 being the new pearl harbor pulling america into war ? whos the new nazis ?

reply to post by WestPoint23



Do you even read what you write? Are you five years old? You made up the majority of that. Iran just had a Revolution and no standing army when Saddam invaded but religious fanatics created the bulk of the militia that pushed the army back. Not even an army.. a militia forced Saddam back to baghdad. Get an education.

mod edit to add Reply To code
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: You Have a U2U- Click Here.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

tsk tsk - personal insults are frowned upon

the iranian revolution happened in 1979 - with massive purges in all the armed forces - Iraq (prompted by arab backers and the usa) invaded in 1980... plenty of time to raise and train and army

if bush has been planning it for years then it must be something big going to happen in the coming mounths who knows could turn to ww3.

and reply to westpoint:

well the first gulf war wasnt the iraqi army against atleast 12 countries 1 on 12 is not fair and anyone knows who will win you went in 1991 with your forces and wiped out half his army then you come back 2003 and say you did it in a few days fact: half his army was destroyed low morale for troops you were against a weaker iraq if you had gone in on your own in 1991 iraq would off pushed you out.

irans people love there country and will deffend to the death as we have seen in the past.

Some seem to think that the U.S. will just attack all out for 3 days then stop. The 3 day inital barrage will be followed up with 800-1200 airplane sorties and more cruise missile launches as needed till the objectives are achieved. The 3 day part will be to secure the skies over Iran and eliminate threats to the Straits of Hormuz.

Comparisons to Serbia while valid to a point, aren't really applicable as in Serbia we were really not targeting things on a level that would happen in Iran. In Serbia we were trying to inflict "just enough" to cause the change we wanted. In Iran we will do much more damage as we really would want to cripple Iran's military and government.

Mobile SAM sites have always been a problem and I think the development of UCAV and recon platforms will make very noticiable improvements on their detection and destruction. To me it would make sense to take drones in with the initial waves to just circle around till the SAMS take their shots at the attacking aircraft, then swoop in and hit them while they are packing up and moving.

Iran will try to defend, it will just get overwhelmed and not be able to replenish lost weapons at a fast enough pace to matter. America will be able to sustain a long air campaign and keep hammering away at their list of targets. It's a numbers game after awhile.

Watch for Iran to allow a influx of western journalists as the time for actual conflict draws closer. That's the only time they will really want them there.

K

The problem with your logic is it seems you refuse to believe Iran will retaliate massively. Air power can't defeat a ground army. What's going to stop massive amounts of Iranian/Syrian/Lebanese guerilla's from just moving right on into Iraq/Afghanistan? Nothing. In the end we lose so it doesn't really matter now does it.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 3-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]