Medius wrote:I thought this latest crazy talk would sort out, but it appears that this is going to be a "real" discussion.
If the US has the stomach for it, we can obliterate Iran. No question. Sorry, I know people want to feel like there is a limitation to the US war machine, but sadly, the limitation isn't quite so small as Iran.
Now, that said, it isn't something we are going to do with just some left-over special forces. A ground invasion would require us to pull out of some areas, mobilize all of our existing reserves, and start some heavy recruiting with some possible draft legislation on the back-burner.
It would not, however, even be close to our mobilization effort for WWII. And unless we really just wanted to be entirely stupid, it wouldn't be the meat-grinder of Vietnam... If we have the sYou seem to be confused.tomach for it.
That said, we don't have the stomach for it. The US Citizenry don't want to go to war with Iran. A war with Iran isn't likely to boost army volunteers. It is likely to be fought with just who we have available and as such, would be a bombing war aimed at surrender that would likely go south after the first or tenth elementary school was blown up.
This is nuts. Obliterate them? We just lost over 4,400 people in Iraq--a country that HAD no military after the initial invasion--and you think we could invade a fully functional state in the middle east that is one of the world's experts at asymmetrical warfare and we'll simply "obliterate" them?
Invade them for what, exactly? What is the end game? So we'll occupy them? Or just leave after "obliterating" them?
And now, after turning the Persians against us to go with all the Arabs, the Shiites to go with the Sunnis, we'll have managed to literally turn that entire region against us. Oh, except for Israel. BTW last time I checked Israel doesn't have oil, and to that point, I hope you like oil at $400/bbl and what that would mean for the American economy--because that's where it will go when we invade Iran to "obliterate" them.
People figured out long ago--and Iraq proved it--that you don't take on the U.S. military in a conventional war, you bleed us to death with asymmetrical tactics and insurgencies. I'm also guessing Iran would respond by unleashing its full cyberwar capabilities, which are also world-class.
You seem to be very confused. The United States and allies only lost roughly around 174 troops, during the invasion of Iraq. After 8 years of asymmetric warfare, and finally implementing a coherent counter-insurgency strategy, another 4,000 servicemen were lost.
The United States could successfully invade Iran, the actual occupation of Iran would be difficult, but I don't think it would as incompetently implemented as it was in Iraq, in 2003.
I don't advocate for war or the invasion of Iran, but you seem to have no clue about what you are talking about.