Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Encircles Iran: Victory Would Take 3 Weeks
Russia Today ^ | May 2, 2012

Posted on 05/02/2012 7:50:41 AM PDT by 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]."

(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012; campaign; dontfallforit; election2012; iran; islam; israel; middleeast; obamacampaign; wagthedog; wartalk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 05/02/2012 7:50:49 AM PDT by Strategy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Strategy

And about 100 years to “nation build”.


2 posted on 05/02/2012 7:53:52 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Liberalism: Carrying adolescent values and behavior into adult life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Does that count the time it would take to get O’bama off the golf course, into a jacket and in front of the TV?


3 posted on 05/02/2012 7:53:52 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Victory would take 3 weeks.

Peace would take a decade or more.

Our government is still of the Vietnam War mentality. It took days to take down Saddam Hussein — twice. Iraq, a decade later, is still not at peace.


4 posted on 05/02/2012 7:53:59 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
"We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,"

With this President?....DREAM ON!

5 posted on 05/02/2012 7:55:47 AM PDT by Minutemen ("It's a Religion of Peace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

How long to wipe out the Islamic infrastructure and imam leadership?


6 posted on 05/02/2012 7:56:40 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

If total victory is not our goal, then stay the hell out of the Middle East. Those people do not want peace, they want conflict. I don’t want to see any troops on the ground over there unless they are given the orders to win without this administrations Rules of Engagement.


7 posted on 05/02/2012 8:00:37 AM PDT by RC2 (Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
Depends on what you call victory. Thoroughly trashing the place so that they are incapable of any industrial production, much less high end uranium refining, sure we could do that in three weeks. Undo the damage of radical Islam on the Persian people, we couldn't do that in a century.

Nation building is a pipe dream. People talk about the Marshal plan as being nation building, but the nations already existed. It was just fixing broken buildings. Creating a civilized nation state where one has not existed in centuries isn't nearly so straight forward. It is difficult to comprehend what needs to be done and nearly impossible to do it.

Nation wrecking on the other hand is quite simple in theory and easy in execution.

8 posted on 05/02/2012 8:01:06 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
Yup.

I really hate nation building. Our military should be used to break things and to kill people. Make the other nation weaker, and very reluctant to tussle with us ever again. Then leave.

That's victory. That's how wars are won.

9 posted on 05/02/2012 8:01:46 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
I hate these type of predictions. It makes me think of "the Battle of Manassas" during the Civil War when the Washington Elite showed up with picnic baskets to watch the quick defeat of the Rebel forces that didn't happen.

Watching a real war with people getting killed and maimed, how sick is that?

Anyway, I think we could beat Iran quickly, but what if we can't? What if more countries get dragged into the war? War often isn't predictable.

10 posted on 05/02/2012 8:04:08 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Let the defeated nations rebuild themselves.
That way they may have a better appreciation for what they have and more reluctance to lose it again.

11 posted on 05/02/2012 8:07:52 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
-The Marshall plan worked because Germany, even defeated, was predominately Christian, civilized and very ordered in it's social structure.

Nation building, by contrast in the Middle East, has to deal with tribalism, an uneducated and superstitious population and most detrimental, a religious base rooted in the seventh century.

12 posted on 05/02/2012 8:08:16 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The flaw in this three weeks plan is that it leaves the Ayotollahs in charge (unless Iranians rise up from within). This is not a nation building plan, it’s a plan to reduce Iran’s military so they stop making trouble.

We did not win in Germany and Japan by defeating them and leaving. We wrote the Japanese constitution. I believe political subjugation has been the more common historical model.


13 posted on 05/02/2012 8:09:02 AM PDT by Andrei Bulba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategy; headstamp 2; Gilbo_3
Three weeks to ‘Mission Accomplished’ then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and rebuild the nation and then abandon it when the next Dem POTUS takes over after demonizing the idea for years.

This sounds familiar for some reason.

Did abandoning Iraq make any sense?

14 posted on 05/02/2012 8:09:30 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Like every where, 3 weeks and 10 years for the American people to buy and build all the water, power, schools etc, etc etc.

We should have been out of the ME three weeks after the first bomb landed but nope.


15 posted on 05/02/2012 8:09:45 AM PDT by edcoil (It is not over until I win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I agree. Especially when dealing with backward Islamist. The only place we should occupy is their oil fields, pipelines and seaways to get the oil out.

If they have other valuable mineral deposits, then we should mine it and extract it. Leave them with nothing that can help them to fight and kill us later.

If they have nothing, then just bomb and kill their leaders, then leave. Repeat as necessary.

16 posted on 05/02/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategy; headstamp 2; Gilbo_3
Three weeks to ‘Mission Accomplished’ then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and then rebuild the nation $$$$$$ and then abandon it when the next Dem POTUS takes over after demonizing the idea for years.

This sounds familiar for some reason.

Did abandoning Iraq make any sense?

17 posted on 05/02/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Three weeks to ‘Mission Accomplished’ then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and then rebuild the nation $$$$$$

We're certainly not physically invading the Iranian mainland on the ground and overthrowing the government. That's not what the article discusses, and we're not actually capable of doing so, anyway.

18 posted on 05/02/2012 8:12:28 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
The only place we should occupy is their oil fields, pipelines and seaways to get the oil out.

Hey, you stole my idea for Iraq!

19 posted on 05/02/2012 8:12:49 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

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


20 posted on 05/02/2012 8:12:57 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Wasn’t the same said about Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan (all with some variation, but with similar meaning)?


21 posted on 05/02/2012 8:14:17 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... so should voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Our victory would be to get away from needing to deal with any of these camel jockeys.

We can become energy independent through our own vast gas and oil reserves. That is not what nobama wants, but FUBO.

Let the rest of the world deal with muslims, if they threaten us, give em a mighty sting to warn of worst to come of they persist. These 8th Cemtury idiots are not nearly as gungho as were the Japanese and even they took the hint in 45.


22 posted on 05/02/2012 8:14:40 AM PDT by X-spurt (Its time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
Depends on what you call victory.

Your post was excellent, from start to finish.

It is one thing to simply knock out Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. Bit if the US wants to "defeat" Iran, that means more widespread destruction, and troops on the ground.

And from that, I guarantee will come "nation-building". Of course, the current administration will call it something different, but we'll be back to building roads, bridges, schools, etc.

And then our troops will be sniped at, and bombs will start exploding in market squares and along convoy routes. We've seen all that before. It will end badly.

As General MacArthur said, never get involved in an Asian land war.

23 posted on 05/02/2012 8:15:26 AM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I carrying this lantern? you ask. I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
"Pentagon strategists estimate that they would need less than a month to defeat Iranian forces"


24 posted on 05/02/2012 8:16:03 AM PDT by Iron Munro (If Repub's paid as much attention to Rush Limbaugh as the Dem's do, we wouldn't be in this mess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

We did destroy and conquer Iraq and Afghanistan in three weeks or less.

Then we got into nation-building...


25 posted on 05/02/2012 8:16:52 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
We're certainly not physically invading the Iranian mainland on the ground and overthrowing the government. That's not what the article discusses, and we're not actually capable of doing so, anyway.

Which means we would not accomplish what the article supposes. Without getting on the ground and schwacking them directly, "victory" will not occur.

Besides, the unwieldy ROE slapped on our side would prevent it.

26 posted on 05/02/2012 8:17:20 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... so should voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

——and most detrimental, a religious base rooted in the seventh century.——

Islam is horrible, but not because it was founded in the 7th century. After all, Christianity was founded in the first.

Chronology and truth/goodness are unrelated.


27 posted on 05/02/2012 8:18:44 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
I believe political subjugation has been the more common historical model.

True. I can think of several examples:
Ancient Rome
British Empire
Spanish Empire
Nazi Germany
Imperial Japan

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.

28 posted on 05/02/2012 8:21:04 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Iran has heard this noise for years and has equipped itself with underground bunkers.

Their backers in China and Russia would never stand for our attacking them anyway, and would be pouring aid in there.


29 posted on 05/02/2012 8:21:43 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... so should voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Military dominance by itself is useless against a radicalized population, in fact it would likely increase future conflict.

Total war means society against society to see which collective government will prevail.

The only useful goal of any conflict is to get the enemy to stop fighting. Iran, stop fighting?

Conquest always either dies from indigestion or survives from assimilation. I’m not seeing any Planet Hollywoods in downtown Tehran.

Did we hire Baghdad Bob?

Tactics should never lead strategy. (pardon my pun, Strategy)


30 posted on 05/02/2012 8:21:56 AM PDT by gandalftb (The art of diplomacy says "nice doggie", until you find a bigger rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BitWielder1

Our “nation building” in Iraq was more to prevent Iran from easily overrunning Iraq after we trashed their military quite effeciently.

We should offer Iraq some aid in rebuilding, sign a mutual defense treaty with them, leave and dare Iran to do anything.

The one thing I admire about Teddy Roosevelt was his “talk softly and carry a big stick” foreign policy.


31 posted on 05/02/2012 8:22:48 AM PDT by X-spurt (Its time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist; headstamp 2; Gilbo_3
RE :”We're certainly not physically invading the Iranian mainland on the ground and overthrowing the government. That's not what the article discusses, and we're not actually capable of doing so, anyway.

This has all the signs of nothing more than a Diplomatic bluff but if say a Romney was POTUS and he started talking like he was serious about it we would have to critically ask what the end-game would be because that certainly was never talked about seriously in the 2002/2003 run-up to Iraq.

Brushing the Iraq defenses a-side was childs play. It was the nightmare that followed that was not thought out seriously.

32 posted on 05/02/2012 8:24:12 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Yup, and this time the ‘rats wouldn’t question the president if at that point he claimed major combat operations were over.


33 posted on 05/02/2012 8:24:12 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

We should NOT invade Iran unless our strategy is something along the lines of “invade, blow $#!+ up, leave, lather, rinse, repeat.”


34 posted on 05/02/2012 8:25:26 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (We apologise for the fault in this tagline. Those responsible have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

“As General MacArthur said, never get involved in an Asian land war.”

I thought it was Vizzini that said that...


35 posted on 05/02/2012 8:31:28 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (We apologise for the fault in this tagline. Those responsible have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ZirconEncrustedTweezers

It’s silly to discuss invading Iran, because it can’t, and won’t, happen.

Iran’s population is more than either Japan or Germany’s population in 1945, and over twice that of Afghanistan.

The land area is over twice that of Afghanistan.


36 posted on 05/02/2012 8:33:20 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ZirconEncrustedTweezers

37 posted on 05/02/2012 8:37:01 AM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I guess I should have chosen a different word for it. I was thinking more along the lines of destroying infrastructure without much in the way of feet on the ground.

The theory of “strategic bombing” has been discredited over time, but even if such a strategy doesn’t result in the overthrow of an unfriendly regime from within it would eventually weaken the regime to the point where it is no longer a threat.


38 posted on 05/02/2012 8:38:45 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (We apologise for the fault in this tagline. Those responsible have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SparkyBass

Never bet against a Kenyan Marxist when death is on the line! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha *thud*


39 posted on 05/02/2012 8:39:53 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (We apologise for the fault in this tagline. Those responsible have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

“The flaw in this three weeks plan is that it leaves the Ayotollahs in charge (unless Iranians rise up from within). This is not a nation building plan, it’s a plan to reduce Iran’s military so they stop making trouble.
We did not win in Germany and Japan by defeating them and leaving. We wrote the Japanese constitution. I believe political subjugation has been the more common historical model.”

A very clear and cogent analysis of past events.

The only way to “rebuild” Islamic nations — after first defeating them militarily — is to make the -removal- of Islam from those nations priority one.

Just as we “de-Nazified” Germany after World War II, if the West has any hope for survival in the current worldwide struggle, we must de-Islamicize Moslem nations, once and for all.

Otherwise, the West will lose.


40 posted on 05/02/2012 8:43:28 AM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
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?

41 posted on 05/02/2012 8:54:46 AM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
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!

42 posted on 05/02/2012 8:55:30 AM PDT by varon (The Patriots stand watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
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.

43 posted on 05/02/2012 9:02:26 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoGOP
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

44 posted on 05/02/2012 9:04:15 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

Anyone want to buy a bridge?


45 posted on 05/02/2012 9:06:07 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategy

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.


46 posted on 05/02/2012 9:10:49 AM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“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...


47 posted on 05/02/2012 9:11:11 AM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MomwithHope

oops Was the Dog = Wag the Dog


48 posted on 05/02/2012 9:11:59 AM PDT by MomwithHope (Buy and read Ameritopia by Mark Levin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
Then we got into nation-building...

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

Screw the 401K, invest in war!

49 posted on 05/02/2012 9:12:05 AM PDT by varon (The Patriots stand watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Strategy
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.
50 posted on 05/02/2012 9:19:26 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson