Posted on 02/11/2007 12:25:49 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
"If God-forbid, we do go after Iran militarily, I don't think Iran will be the relative cakewalk that Iraq was."
Iran can be easily taken. The problem is that after taking, then what? Do what we did in Iraq and change the Rules of Engagement. Expedite a new government so our military becomes guests and under the authority of the new government.
Oh, we can take Iran. But we should be clear about the problems and allowing all necessary Rules in order to pacify the wackos.
True.
>> If nobody 'martyrs' themselves, it's not a suicide drone. Maybe they'll have to put this one on hold while they figure that out.
Agreed. I think the "Suicide Drone" idea bypassed the editor's desk.
ROFL. Not
We're not invading Iran.
Have you ever, say, looked at a map of Iran? Or its population?
"Didn't work out so well for the japs did it"
Actually it did, part of the reason that the Nuclear bomb prevailed over operation Olympic.
"Iran can be easily taken."
You are too literal. There is a difference between "taken" and "occupied". We can "take" Iran as in "taking on an opponenent". We do not need to occupy Iran. We could, but we do not need too. We can dismember Iran. We can do lots of things to Iran. We can turn their lights out...
And we literally do not have the troop strength to occupy Iran, if we wanted to.
What I was attempting to say, and apparently not to clearly, is that our military is quite capable of dealing with Iran. It is the Rules that bind them. We could put out tank divisions back in Iraq and march to Tehran or Damascus.
It is the Rules that prevent the successful completion of the the mission. Our Air and Land Power is still formidable and can create great changes. In the disarray that follows, do we take governing control away as we did in Iraq?
If we do not engage on land in Iran, do we just drop bombs and lob missles? We need people there, so we need to destroy the Regime and then inspect their nuclear facilities. We need to gather their scientists into one area and interrogate them. The same for the military and remaining political hierarchy.
These are things that need to be done.
Funded by a Muslim.
Thanks for that link,...sounds like a slow flying drone wouldn't stand a chance....gatling guns are wicked....
Surrend is?!?
That was a great weapon,but if im not mistaken,it was cancelled a few years ago.
Do we have enough SM-2 and AMRAAMs?
I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. The Navy does indeed have an institutional bias toward large ships, which is changing as the nature of warfare changes. Before WWII, battleships ruled. Since then until very recently, much of the focus has been power projection with carrier battle groups, which is a great way to win a cold war. Today, much more emphasis is being put on littoral and assymmetrical warfare.
However, intraservice rivalries within the Navy, the skimmers vs. bubbleheads vs. airdales budget battles, etc. have ensured that the Navy has a wide variety of surface, subsurface and airborne platforms from which to choose and is building more all the time.
The problem of keeping the oil flowing out of the middle east has been wargamed repeatedly since oil was discovered there. The Iranian "navy" has tried to close the Straits before and been unsuccessful. To say that they have any sort of advantage over the US Navy is simply laughable.
It's great when it's not broken and leaking hydraulic fluid.
Downtime is something like 50% of operational time.
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.