Iran - Iraq war 2

Being able to stave of destruction does not make you a potent military force. The insurgency can not even hope to gain control of Iraq nor help anyone else gain control of Iraq. They can not win a major battle. They can not drive the United States out of Iraq. They are not capable of accomplishing any sort of military goal. They are a political nuissance, their objectives are political- to offend the weak hearts of civilians and discourage America from continuing to fight.

So again, they are not military significant. They are domestically/politically significant. They have no relevance to a discussion of Iran's ability to attack Iraq because they can not add any appreciable strength to the Iranian force.

EDIT to add:
I'm usually the one who reminds people that we don't win wars just because we're American. Perhaps you've noticed me pointing out that we can't just ignore the Sunburn simply on the grounds that it is Russian.
What have we got in Iraq, 130,000 guys? The insurgents so far are averaging somewhere around a thousand a year. It would take them 30 years just to put a good sized dent in us, assuming that we never made any headway against them at all.
A lot of nations, especially in years past, had a word for military situations where you only lose about 1,000 guys a year- it was called PEACE.

As a Marine you can bet that I take it seriously when we take losses, but I would not slander my brothers over there on top of it by claiming that they were in any danger of defeat from these glorified street gangs who have no true power except to demonstrate the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and to enhance opposition to the war here in America. The fact of the matter is that if our government wanted to, they could have us out in a couple of months and the Iraqi government would hold because these people are nothing but brainwashed street thugs being sent to harrass our men and weaken the hearts of our people back here at home- they have no future.

[edit on 27-3-2005 by The Vagabond]

Wrong wrong wrong! The insurgencys dont have controll Iraq all they have to do is undermine the Iraqi government and kill US soilders.
The voters will say when its time to leave Iraq thats when there sick of seeing dead bodies coming home. Insurgency warfare is about not who "controlls" a city its about people.. US tactics often play into the hands of the enemy often firepower causes huge amount of property damage with little affect on the enemy.

Originally posted by xpert11
all they have to do is undermine the Iraqi government and kill US soilders.
The voters will say when its time to leave Iraq thats when there sick of seeing dead bodies coming home.

Did you even read my friggin post? This is exactly what I'm trying to tell you. They are a political force, they are drying to defeat the will of the American voter. They can not "undermine" the Iraqi government however- they do not have sufficient force to impose their will on Iraq when we leave. Its not their country. It's never going to be their country, they can not win. All they can do is kill a few people, and all it's going to do is upset a few civilians, who in case you haven't noticed, do not have a say in American politics anymore.

Insurgency warfare is about not who "controlls" a city its about people.. US tactics often play into the hands of the enemy often firepower causes huge amount of property damage with little affect on the enemy.

And this matters why? These people can not get what they want. The only reason to fight is to get what you want, but they never will. They are only fighting because they've been lied to by their religious puppet masters who say that they might be able to win and who promise them that they will get to have sex and all these great things in heaven which are forbidden here on earth.
Thats it man. Iraq will never be their country- they will inevitably be put under a new government, either one just like the American occupiers, or one just like Saddam- either way, the terrorists lose. They're fighting out of hate- hate for us and hate for themselves- nothing more. Terrorism preys on the insecurities of teenagers to make suicide warriors out of them who will sacrifice themselves for futile objectives.

Get it through your head- the terrorist can't control Iraq, they can't even help Iran control Iraq. That makes them insignifant. If anybody is "playing right into their hands" it's cowards like you who think we're beaten everytime we lose one guy.
There's a million and one reasons to be against this war, and I embrace several of them- but not your defeatist manure which serves only to exhalt a bunch of uneducated, brainwashed, sucidial teenagers over our forces who have been kicking their butt day and night.

I think you're kidding. I hope you're kidding. Are you kidding?

I'm not. How, exactly, are we ever going to oppose China over Taiwan if we won't put them in the Gulf? How would we deal with Russia? America has to execpt that there is great risk in war. If we only use our weapons when there is no risk, they are pretty much pointless to have.

Some Soviet/Russian technology is actually not trailing very far behind America, and in certain areas they're still right there with us. The US Navy has sought repeatedly to aquire both Sunburns and other Russian missile designs since the late 90s.

I never got why this is brought up. Of course we tried to get a few to test their capability. We've probably tried to get anything Russian we could. It's just smart policy. Besides, didn't Clinton turn down an offer to get sunburns?

First of all, from a weapons standpoint they definately did not bluff their way through the cold war. Apples to apples, Soviet stuff is only slightly lower quality than NATO equivalents, reflecting not a technological disadvantage but a manufacturing decision to take quantity over quality. Unlike their client states who have so commonly been defeated by Western style forces, the Soviets would have had that quantity and likely would have won a land war in Europe.

The only area they had really impressive numbers was tanks, and they fell short in training, as well as quality. Most of their tanks were nowhere the level of the Western tanks being used.

Russia does not just choose to make inferior equipment because of doctrine, either. They have avionics and system packages decades behind our own. Is that really just so save time, or is because they never had the strong private sector America had?

As for coming up with a countermeasure in 10 years: The experts say no. There have been congressional inquiries and think tank studies and all that good stuff, and the general concensus is that Aegis can't stop it and that Phalanx would fail often as well.

The phalanx is being replaced soon by a more effective missile defense. The Aegis is the most powerful system in use.

And the things that were said to be there were there in both cases. Not in extreme quantities (keeping in mind that air defenses are a much differnet ball game from anti-ship missiles. You just don't need as many.)

Iraq was said to have gotten the S-300. I don't think that was there.

The whole Argentine airforce during the Falklands war was something like 4 planes and 8 exocets if I recall correctly.
I don't see why it's so bloody important to you to insist that we send a fleet into the persian gulf to get several major ships sunk (which is exactly what will happen if they are attacked with sunburns) instead of approaching this war from a safer angle. (get Syria first or secure Turkish cooperation)

The government will not be allowed to invade every nation in the Middle East. If Iran attacks, it is essential to strike back on their homeland quickly. Air support will be needed to nuetralize the greater numbers.

Too bad you weren't in the airforce during Desert Storm- maybe you could have solved Israel's problem with Iraqi scuds. We can't just carpet bomb their coast and hope that we happened to get lucky hit these 16 small, mobile weapons systems which could cause a couple thousand casualties and a few billion dollars in losses if they survive.

The Scuds could be scattered throughout Iraq. These small platforms would have to be near the coast.

Saddam didn't stand to fight- he stood to stare us down. When that didn't work, everyone except the republican guard flat out ran away or surrendered- some as units, some as individual deserters.

Saddam didn't give the order to retreat. The morale was just destroyed after months of being bombed, as well as the fact that they weren't a professional army, and they didn't really believe in what they were fighting for.

I don't see how you can insult the Iraqis, when many of America's own soldiers did the same in Korea when the Chinese attacked.

Then in this second effort Iraqi troops did no better. Virtually nobody stood their ground until we got to Najaf, and that was hardly even a speed bump on the way to the ONLY -real- resistance in Baghdad. The Iraqis saw us coming and started getting their white flags ready immediately. There were so many of them we couldn't even process them- we just sent them home.
That is called bending over and taking it.

As I said, there is evidence that Saddam only put up token resistance, and wanted to drag us into a long guerilla war, and he succeeded. He was training his men for this before the invasion.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan- a solid wall between Russia and the middle east. Turkmenistan might make the list too, but I think we're more likely to go for a coup there. If this isn't the day of colonialism or a world war, you better go tell the Pentagon to know this stuff off, because that's exactly what they're up to.
And of course that's only if you make the mistake as viewing the war on terror seperately from other post cold war moves- then you'd have to count the former Yugoslavia as well, not to mention that we've pulled several former Soviet nations into NATO.

These are more political moves then flat out invasions, execpt for Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan we were attacked, giving us perfect reason. Iraq was very difficult to sell to the world as well as the American people. Iran we may be able to sell, Syria we probably won't. Most people dont' care about Syria, and as long as Syria shows even token gestures of goodwill, like giving us Saddam's brother, we really couldn't pull it off.

For one thing, America has the luxury of doing pretty much whatever it wants. We have made two invasions without the Security Council's consent, which is in fact a violation of international law and nobody is even thinking about standing up to us. Besides that, Syria is full of terrorists and would seem to be a very legitimate target.

You're starting to sound more like me now...

We could very well do it. The world isn't what the problem is, though. It's what the American people will except, and how much heat politicians are willing to take.

If there is something America does not have the luxury of doing, it's running the risk of getting a bloody nose from anyone. If that happens Russia is going to say to themselves- hey, we've found a way to stop the Americans, and those damned missiles are going to start popping up in every hot spot around the world at bargain rates.

Most of the world already thinks we've been bloodied and beaten around in Iraq. Our politics have already made the world think we're vulnerable. Just listen to the various Europeans and Russians on here. Those missiles have already been sold apparently to everyone, as well. What would we do against North Korea? It would send a far stronger message to take a risk, something America's military hasn't done for some time.

So you're still denying that there is a significant insurgency in Iraq, and this is just a very small isolated group of people who are playing hell with the peace and security of that country?

I wouldn't call them isolated, they have sympathy from some of the Iraqi people. They couldn't operate oterhwise. That still doesn't mean they have any military use, or they could hinder America's military in any serious way if we invaded.

Not only that, but America isn't reliable. There are only 4 kinds of people who can always be sure that America is there when needed- 1. Saudis. 2. Americans. 3. Multi-National Corporations. 4. Israelis. In that order. The Pakistanis know they aren't on the list.

That's because America has no threat. There is no vital reason to protect anyone but them. If another Cold War starts, that'll change completely.

Insurgents cut and run, they would be crushed in a head to head fight, you saw what happened in Falluja 2 weeks and 50 soldiers dead, while killing more than 1300+ insurgents.

The only group of Iraqi who sympathies with the insurgents are the Sunnis who lost their power once we caught Saddam in a rat hole. The country is getting better each day. It took us 10 years to stabilize Japan after WWII look t how much we have accomplished in 2 years in Iraq.

Vagabond the insurgents are a military and political force.
Why dose property damage matter ? Its a propganda victory for the insurgrents
more proof you dont understand insurgency warfare . Fallujah wasnt a victory by the time the Americans lanuched there attacks the leaders of the insurgents had left the city. The insurgents can take loses remember strap a bomb round someones waist or give them an Ak-47 and you have an insurgent. The problem is the US military is fighting a convental war against insurgents.


[edit on 27-3-2005 by xpert11]

Its the only way we can fight them right now conventionally the U.S. is not about o start dressing soldiers in civilian clothes and start blowing people it suspects. We have to wait until the Iraqi army get a little better and gets some more numbers the Iraqis can identify people who don't fit in better than a white boy from Oklahoma can.

more proof you dont understand insurgency warfare . Fallujah wasnt a victory by the time the Americans lanuched there attacks the leaders of the insurgents had left the city. The insurgents can take loses remember strap a bomb round someones waist or give them an Ak-47 and you have an insurgent. The problem is the US military is fighting a convental war against insurgents

The insurgents do not have some unlimmited number of supporters. They can not take massive losses like they have been for long. Some 200,000 have already been killed.

And there is no military risk because America will never run out of men.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The insurgents do not have some unlimmited number of supporters. They can not take massive losses like they have been for long. Some 200,000 have already been killed.

They can if the US continues its strategy of conventional warfare.

And there is no military risk because America will never run out of men.

No they will just run out of support for the iraq war.

I'd like to continue this discussion but I'm afraid I'll have to be letting it go for now . I'm starting a job out of town tomorrow and I won't be accessing the ATS for a while.

I guess for good measure I'll sum up in the simplest possible words though.

1. America's belief that we can throw caution to the wind and walk right over anybody by virtue of technological superiorty, vis a vis the debate over the ability/wisdom of using the Persian Gulf in a war with Iran, seems to be inordinately risky. If/When this belief finally bites us, the resultant damage will be remembered as the first hint that America can be defeated, and the prelude to a turning point, not unlike Coral Sea was for the Japanese.

2. Even if the Iraqi insurgency drove America out of Iraq, it would not be a victory for them, in the sense that they would still not be able to direct Iraq's future. As significant as they may be in terms of propaganda/political impact, they do not have the ability to impose their will on Iraq. That is all that matters. It doesn't matter how many die, how much is damaged, or what people think; the force that imposes its will is the victor. America's will to keep Iraq from returning to its former identity as a state sponsor of terror and threat to regional security will prevail over the will of the terrorists to make it a sponsor of and haven for their terrorist activities.

Its the only way we can fight them right now conventionally the U.S. is not about o start dressing soldiers in civilian clothes and start blowing people it suspects. We have to wait until the Iraqi army get a little better and gets some more numbers the Iraqis can identify people who don't fit in better than a white boy from Oklahoma can.

How about giving special forces that are of arab desent ago instead of large numbers of convental forces?

The insurgents do not have some unlimmited number of supporters. They can not take massive losses like they have been for long. Some 200,000 have already been killed.

The US military dosnt know how many insurgents there are in Iraq to start with!

The senior military official told CNN the bulk of the insurgency is made up of 12,000 to 15,000 Arab Sunni followers of Saddam's party. The Baath Party was overthrown by a U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
source

One military intelligence assessment now estimates the insurgents' strength at 50,000. Analysts cautioned that such a figure was speculative, but it does indicate a deep-rooted revolt on a far greater scale than the Pentagon had led the administration to believe.


source

Notice the differnce?

How about giving special forces that are of arab desent ago instead of large numbers of convental forces?

Uhh... we have special forces working in Iraq already, Taskforce 121 and now they changed their name to Grey...something. Plus there are Delta and Seal teams in Iraq working overtime.
And I don't know how many special forces people the U.S. has that are of Arab descent but if we have any they wont be in great numbers to make a difference.

They can if the US continues its strategy of conventional warfare.

Right. Because we've only killed or captured 200,000 of them with our current strategy...

No they will just run out of support for the iraq war.

It seems to be happening the other way around. Support for the Iraq war has been pretty constant up till this point.

The attacks on American forces have been in decline since the election. The Sunni forces may be thinking of giving up. The attacks in general have been getting sloppier.

How about giving special forces that are of arab desent ago instead of large numbers of convental forces?

We don't have large numbers of special forces of Arab descent, and we can't get them.

We have no need, either. As I've said, they are in decline, not increasing. Whatever we've been doing, it's working. You people just seem to expect instant results.

The US military dosnt know how many insurgents there are in Iraq to start with!

We have a solid idea. It could be 100,000 and still be small. It's a country of 20 million.

Well actually the population of Iraq is about 24Million 100.000 is only 0.4% percent that's not that much.

Right. Because we've only killed or captured 200,000 of them with our current strategy...

I have already debunked this.

The attacks on American forces have been in decline since the election. The Sunni forces may be thinking of giving up. The attacks in general have been getting sloppier.

Tell me what world are you living in ? Because its not the real one.

We don't have large numbers of special forces of Arab descent, and we can't get them.

Cant ? what theres no people of Arab desent in the US military who could try out for Special forces?

I don't know how many special forces people the U.S. has that are of Arab descent but if we have any they wont be in great numbers to make a difference.

Rubbish special forces are the best way to fight insurgents.



[edit on 27-3-2005 by xpert11]

I have already debunked this.

No you haven't. Knowing how many the total are, and how many you've killed and captured are completely different.

Tell me what world are you living in ? Because its not the real one.

news.ft.com...

Cant ? what theres no people of Arab desent in the US military?

We have just 4,000 Arabs in America's military. How many of those do you think speak English? How many are good enough to be turned into "special forces?"

America has been trying to get agents of Arab descent for some time. It's not that easy.

If the insurgents wanted to be apart of the political process they wouldnt be attacking Iraqi and American sercuity forces. They dont understand the political process nither do the Iraqi people.

You have to know how many insurgents there are before you know how many have been killed. For example you cant kill 200,000 insurgents if there were only 10,000 to start with.

If the insurgents wanted to be apart of the political process they wouldnt be attacking Iraqi and American sercuity forces. They dont understand the political process nither do the Iraqi people.

Wow... the Iraqi people d not understand the political process? I guess they vote while in fear of being shot for no reason then? Insurgents want to disrupt the political process, hence the killing of elected officials.

Wow... the Iraqi people d not understand the political process? I guess they vote while in fear of being shot for no reason then? Insurgents want to disrupt the political process, hence the killing of elected officials.

It is true that the Iraqi people voted in spite of the insurgents it dosnt mean that they understand the political process. For the first time in 30-40 years they can complain if there is no running water.

I wouldn't worry about any Sunburns. I hope no one really think the U.S. doesn't have a counter to such a missile. We don't have the world's best navy and largest military budget for nothing. Didn't Intelgurl make a post about the Sunburn being a copy of the Patriot missile system, or do I have that mixed up with some other missile system?

Anyways, America isn't going to suck up to other countries to avoid a "bloody nose" from other nations. You have to keep yourself secure, despite who likes or dislikes it.