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]."

[headstamp 2]

And about 100 years to “nation build”.

[Izzy Dunne]

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?

[TomGuy]

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.

[Minutemen]

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

With this President?....DREAM ON!

[Paladin2]

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

[RC2]

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.

[GonzoGOP]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[FreeAtlanta]

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.

[BitWielder1]

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.

[pfflier]

-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.

[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.

[sickoflibs]

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?

[edcoil]

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.

[FreeAtlanta]

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.

[sickoflibs]

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?

[Strategerist]

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.

[Future Snake Eater]

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!

[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.