Pentagon Encircles Iran: Victory Would Take 3 Weeks

Russia Today ^ | May 2, 2012

[Strategy]

As the US beefs up its military presence in the Persian Gulf region, Pentagon strategists estimate that they would need less than a month to defeat Iranian forces should a military conflict take place.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) believes it can destroy or significantly degrade Iran's conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air and sea strikes, a defense source told The Washington Post.

"We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president," Army Lt. Col. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman at CENTCOM told the newspaper. "We take our guidance from the secretary of defense and from our civilian bosses in [Washington] DC. So any kind of guidance they give us, that's what we go off of [sic]."

[Nip]

And after the completion of conventional military operations how long will the irregular war last?

That is the real lesson behind Operation Iraqi Freedom. The run to Baghdad and its capture lasted how many days? And how long did we fight the irregular stay behinds?

For many years I read and professionally commented on various war scenarios and conferences designed to establish logistic requirements. The DOD stopped when the last conventional (building, bridge, airfield, sea port) was theoretically destroyed, for the first time. Addressing enemy combat repair and irregular warfare NEVER entered into those discussions. Even when I publicly rubbed their individual and collective noses in their own sh***y falsehoods I was told they couldn't do anything else because of the procedures and policies they had to use.

Until Islam voluntarily under goes a reformation and Renascence level social and religious experience there can be no peace between us. Proof of statement - how many contemporary Islamic politicians are still complaining out the Crusades - events that happened between 1095 and 1291 AD as if they happened within our lifetimes?

[varon]

Bingo. Iraq proved we could take down any regime in about 3 weeks. It’s what comes next that’s the sticky wicket.

In other words we have the capacity to destroy but lack the expertise to win!

[Mr. Jeeves]

Attacking Iran would be utter insanity. And since every senior political figure in both parties has made some favorable reference to it in recent months, it will probably happen before the election.

We're entering the last years of our Empire.

[nathanbedford]

Good post.

There is however another war aim which we ought to consider: the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

If you want to know our intentions in the Persian Gulf we need not look to our Armed Forces there, our pair of carriers cruising there, or our newly deployed Raptors there as described in the companion news story, we should look instead to today's private sector job numbers, a pathetic 119,000, and know that Friday's job numbers will be toxic for Obama's reelection chances.

Consider Obama's recent ploys: he spikes the football on the anniversary of Obama's assassination; he accuses Romney of cowardice and an inability to pull that trigger; he takes a ride to Afghanistan and appears before the troops and has a speech broadcast back to the nation.

The ground is being prepared, the public conditioned to hail a strike against Iran in time for an October surprise.

As for this president shrinking from violence, nothing could be further from the truth. He is a traditional leftist, the most bloodthirsty ideologues human kind has ever known. On March 4 I wrote the following vanity:

Nevermind the Ides of March Beware the Surprises of October

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2854282/posts

[chessplayer]

Anyone want to buy a bridge?

[MomwithHope]

Geez, I just watched Was the Dog last night and now I see this thread. Let’s see Barry start a war just before the election. That’s the ticket.

[Road Glide]

“But, you see, we’re not really an Imperial power. We don’t really take a “colonial” approach to the world.
Here, we value freedom, not subjugation. I don’t want to subjugate anyone — I just want to be free from the thought that they want to pick a fight with us.”

Your point is VERY well-taken.

It would be great if we could continue to live by your precepts. Unfortunately, there is at loose a power in the world which will not and will never agree to such a philosophy.

There is a famous quote, though I’m not sure to whom it can be attributed:
“You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you.”

Here is a revised version, directly attributable to ME:
“You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.”

There is only one way to terminate such interest.
And, right now, the West doesn’t seem to understand....

Unfortunately, if we in fact wish to stop Islam, we had better become more like that list of nations you posted above...

[MomwithHope]

oops Was the Dog = Wag the Dog

[varon]

Then we got into nation-building...

"Nation building" is code for long term contracts for private contractors.

Screw the 401K, invest in war!

[robowombat]

This Russian paper is the sort that for a few dollars anyone can get a ‘news story’ published. This looks like psychological warfare and black propaganda to rattle mullah land. Lots of this sort of thing gets printed in middle eastern and Paki rags. It must shake the turban turners in Qom up a bit.

[Strategerist]

This Russian paper is the sort that for a few dollars anyone can get a ‘news story’ published.

The article is actually copied, without attribution, word-for-word, from the Washington Times.

[Strategerist]

The IRGC and Basij make the Saddam Fedayeen, Al Queda in Iraq, and the Taliban combined look like a joke.

Anyway, the goal, of course, is neither invasion or regime change. It’s the elimination of Iran’s ability to project power - the Air Force, ballistic missile forces, the regular Navy, and the IRGC Navy.

[justice14]

Good post. Thanks.

[Future Snake Eater]

I agree, there’s a hell of a lot more in the way of geopolitical considerations with Iran than there was with Iraq (at least as it relates to actually powerful countries). Afghanistan is a ridiculous balancing act, but I can’t imagine having to deal with powerhouses like Russia and China getting involved.

Iran ain’t worth it.

[Joe Boucher]

could we just torch ALL irans oil wells so they lose the only thing they have to offer?

[unixfox]

NO WAR FOR OIL!

[redgolum]

Define “win”.

We still haven’t “Won” Iraq. Problem is we don’t want to fight like WWII.

We firebombed civilian cities and turned areas into smoking rubble. We broke the will of the people long before we broke their armies.

[redgolum]

We totally remade Japanese civilization. Before the bombs dropped, the Emperor was a god. Now he is a celebrity.

We restored German civilization, somewhat. Their recent actions make me wonder just how much. The Germans still want a United States of Europe, and have it now with the EU.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Based on recent past experience about 10+ years is a reasonable estimate before we would pull out.
If we looked to WWII, who knows. A couple of months. The DOD has never won a war.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-—Problem is we don’t want to fight like WWII.
We firebombed civilian cities and turned areas into smoking rubble. We broke the will of the people long before we broke their armies.-—

It amazes me that most Americans are, at the very least, indifferent to this shameful horror. The ends don’t justify the means.

Modern precision strikes are far superior.