Simultaneous invasion of Iran and Syria possible?

With Iran and Syria the two countries at the top of America's Hit List, it not only seems that war with them is possible, but also that both countries may be invaded within the next 10 years.

Assuming that's the case, is is possible for the U.S., having established a massive foothold in Iraq and Afghanistan and with an alliance with Israel, to invade both Iran and Syria? Both countries are far behind in military capabilities of the U.S. and Israel, so it sounds like a legitimate claim to make.

This is, of course, assuming that the entire Middle East, besides Syria and Iran, support such an operation, and that the countries of Pakistan and Turkey allow the U.S. to use their territory as fronts.

Thoughts?

Thats just plain crazy !
Have you checked out the current sercuity situation in Afghanistan and Iraq lately?
Large numbers of US and allied troops will be required in both countries for 30 years if current goals are to be meet. The US already has plans to withdraw 4000 troops from Afghanistan something that many people are ignoring. The US dosnt have enough troops to occupy another country.

A more interesting question would be If Iran gave up on its nuclear plans . Instead they looked for ways to solve there shortage of spare parts and lay the foundations for a Air war.

However you can be sure of one thing Iran will supply the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq with arms and other resouces in order to tie down as many US troops as possible.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11 The US dosnt have enough troops to occupy another country.

really? even though hundreds of thousands are just sitting about on bases in europe and the US?

or 1,299,000 in total, yes 1.3 million(army, national guard), not counting marines

[edit on 12-12-2005 by namehere]

[edit on 12-12-2005 by namehere]

Possible ofcourse, but they might need a draft. With a draft they have tens of millions of troops at their disposal. We have already seen what they can do in a war with only a few hundred thousands.

The US was able to fight two much more powerful opponents at the same time and win Japan and Germany. Sure Russia helped out alot with Germany as a second front but they didnt do squat with Japan. They declared war on Japan after the US dropped two atomic bombs on them

The convential war wouldnt really be that hard it would be the peacekeeping or nation building crap afterword thats the hard part.

Originally posted by namehere


really? even though hundreds of thousands are just sitting about on bases in europe and the US?

or 1,299,000 in total, yes 1.3 million(army, national guard), not counting marines

Well if you look at the troop numbers that are in Iraq and the debatable number that is needed and you take into account the fact Iran is a larger country then Iraq your statement dosnt hold up up against the weight of logic.
ShadowXIX that crap you refer to is the key to winning victory in any war.

No that crap is the key regime change not war. War is not about building or policing a nation war is killing your enemy

The US was able to handly win the Gulf War without one soldier policing anything. They also turned Saddam from the leader of the fourth largest army in the world to a third rate Middleeast power. He never recovered fully from that @#@ whooping.

Originally posted by xpert11

Well if you look at the troop numbers that are in Iraq and the debatable number that is needed and you take into account the fact Iran is a larger country then Iraq your statement dosnt hold up up against the weight of logic.

larger really isnt an issue with air support and the fact many vital resource and important infastructure is in range of any initial invasion, my statement is quite logical.

and only about 250,000 would be needed.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by namehere]

ShadowXIX you must be joking the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 1991. If the US and its allies had done the job properly in 1991 the 2003 invasion wouldnt have been needed.

Any thrid world country can wage war as you would define it very few countries can win the the most important battle of them all that is nation buliding and the formation of a government that meets your political interests.

Note that I dont mean to imply that thrid world countries could beat the US in a convental war.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
ShadowXIX you must be joking the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 1991. If the US and its allies had done the job properly in 1991 the 2003 invasion wouldnt have been needed.

Oh yes this invasion was really needed You just proved your own thoughts wrong with a statement like that. Saddam had no WMDs nor was he in the process of making any, he was no longer a real threat to any nation in the region. The Gulf War effectively neutered him.

Removing Saddam was never in the mission statement of the Gulf War it was to get him out of Kuwait and they did that with ease winning the war.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Oh yes this invasion was really needed

You just proved your own thoughts wrong with a statement like that. Saddam had no WMDs nor was he in the process of making any, he was no longer a real threat to any nation in the region. The Gulf War effectively neutered him.

Removing Saddam was never in the mission statement of the Gulf War it was to get him out of Kuwait and they did that with ease winning the war.

Your making less sense as you go along. The US kicked the bully out of the sand pit but left him in the playground. The US hasnt won a convental war since WW2.
Lets exam the record of the limted war concept that you support.
Korea - North Korea is still a mence. US troops in south korea are a source political tension in that country. At best the Korean war ended in a stalemate.
Vietnam despite the best efforts of the US and its allies South Vietnam ceases to exist as a state.
Gulf war 1 see above. IF the US and its allies had taken down Saddam in 1991 there may have been more poltical support on the home front for the occupation of Iraq .
The only humane way to fight wars is total war. If for some reason you cant put a government in and place and rebuild a nation you are left with very few options but thats another topic.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 12-12-2005 by xpert11]

Your the one not making sense when you say stuff like

If the US and its allies had done the job properly in 1991 the 2003 invasion wouldnt have been needed.

Maybe a few years ago that might have seemed to make sense but we know better now.

Operation Iraqie Freedom was infact not needed he was a threat to no one. If your trying to suggest Saddam was the "Bully" of the middle east after the Gulf War LOL.

The Coalition in the Gulf War was never created to get Saddam "out of the sandbox" If the US was going to do it they would have to do it by themselves as the others never signed up for that. There was really no need.

There is no chance we will start a war with Iran any time soon..if ever IMO. Syria, that is another question though, and I do believe that one might be likely there. Iran would be impossible to destroy and rebuild in our current state, and shouldn't even be considered. And namehere you are correct is saying that we have enough troops...when I was in the Army a few months back it was 550k active Army, 500k reserve I believe, not counting the 100k or so Marines, Air Force, and Navy. But just because we have the strength doesnt mean we will use it by invading one country after another (well I hope not)

Originally posted by xpert11
The US hasnt won a convental war since WW2.

^This makes alot of sense too

Oh yes the US didnt when the Gulf War considered the most lopsided victory in modern warfare I guess Saddam won the convential war in that one or it was a tie

Afghanistan o yes the Talaban really one the Convential war there too


I could go on but there is really no need

Perhaps I should repharse After Gulf war 1 Saddam was still a bully in the middle east he wasnt the only one my mistake I should have been clearer. In terms of the sandbox I was refering to Kuwait so in effect Saddam was kicked out of the sandbox.
While I have a lot of Isses with the way certain political leaders have delt with Gulf War 2 Im glad we have finaly seen the end of limted wars.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


Oh yes the US didnt when the Gulf War considered the most lopsided victory in modern warfare

I guess Saddam won the convential war in that one or it was a tie

Saddam was on the brink of losing the convental war he couldnt have come any closer to defeat. but poor poltical decisons by the Coalition won him the war or lost the Coalition the war depending on how you look at it.
As for defeating the Iraqi military sheer numbers dosnt equal quality you can hardly brag about defeating an enemy that didnt provide air cover for its ground troops. Surely you must doubt the quality of the Iraqi conscripts?

Afghanistan o yes the Talaban really one the Convential war there too

Whats your point?
Afghanistan isnt a part of the limted war concept. Parts of the invaison of Afghanistan may have been convental but now the US faces the insurgency.
The occupation of a country is usual followed by guerilla warfare.

Just in case you havnt noticed the US and its allies havnt won the war in Afghanistan the Afgan government has yet to take controll of the country. In other words if US and allied forces left Afghanistan tommorrow the country would fall back into the hands of the Tailban.

I could go on but there is really no need

Very true there is no need for flawed cold war thinking anymore.

In short.

Yes we could easily destroy both Iran and Syria's military and military infrastructure at the same time easily.

We could not however hope to occupy either country at the moment whether singly and especially not both together.

Now if other countries helped Iran which is actually quite likely it could get very very ugly.

Neither Iran or Syria's military have the capability to fight the US. They are to far behind in tech, and what tech they do have they do not have enough numbers to overcome the large gap.

-----------------------------

As for the arguements of what wars the US has won/lost. Imo excluding vietnam we have won nearly every battle since WW2. (a handful in korea we lost) On the other hand we have lost every war. (We just never finished and it came back to haunt us.)



[edit on 12-12-2005 by Xerrog]

So the drift I'm getting is that the U.S. will not be able to pull of a simultaneous invasion of both Syria and Iran, is that correct?

My guess was that they could pull something similar to the Gulf War. Begin the mission with B-52s, B-1Bs, and B-2s surgical strikes against early warning, radar, communications, and command and contorl facilities. After that, launch an even larger air campaign that coincides with the ground invasion.

My guess is that such an operation would utilize much of the U.S. military and require an insane amount of resources as well as a massive deployment of National Guard and Reserve troops. Couldn't they compensate for the draft instead?

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Also, to what extent would intelligence and special operations play a role? I know it'd play a huge role, obviously, but how much resources would be required?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Assuming that's the case, is is possible for the U.S., having established a massive foothold in Iraq and Afghanistan and with an alliance with Israel, to invade both Iran and Syria?

Yes. Look at the distribution of troops:
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Army (not the navy, marines, national guard, reserve, etc) has 37 active combat brigades. 12 are deployed. 10 in iraq. 1 in S. Korea and 1 in afghanistan. By 2007 there will be anywhere from 43-48 of these brigades.

There are 39 Guard Active Combat Brigades. 3 are in iraq, 4 are in use.

There is a tremendous capacity for warring there. Neverminding that the troops in iraq could mobilize out of it into Iran and Syria, and also neverminding that in a war like that, a greater middle eastern war, that then it would be time to activate/un-restrain the yehudis, who'd probably be the ones storming syria anyway.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes. Look at the distribution of troops:
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Army (not the navy, marines, national guard, reserve, etc) has 37 active combat brigades. 12 are deployed. 10 in iraq. 1 in S. Korea and 1 in afghanistan. By 2007 there will be anywhere from 43-48 of these brigades.

There are 39 Guard Active Combat Brigades. 3 are in iraq, 4 are in use.

There is a tremendous capacity for warring there. Neverminding that the troops in iraq could mobilize out of it into Iran and Syria, and also neverminding that in a war like that, a greater middle eastern war, that then it would be time to activate/un-restrain the yehudis, who'd probably be the ones storming syria anyway.

Ah, good job, I almost forgot about the New Iraqi Army, which should be substantially combat-ready within the next 10 years. So in addition to Israel, our National Guard, and Reserves, we do have a gargantuan offensive military force in the region.

So, details on the invasion. After surgical strikes via bombers and cruise missiles, does the U.S. launch a singular air campaign first, or do we utilize shock-and-awe and have a combined air/land invasion?