Your description of the differences between Iraq and Iran is good, as well as your explanation of the current situation.
However, it would change significantly if the U.S. decided to stop half-assing it. If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets, I think you’d see a situation more similar to Iraq. We could absolutely roll Iran’s formal military if we committed to it.
But the subsequent occupation and attempt to maintain control would be doomed to the same failures as Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those before it, but on an even larger scale. All forward progress would stop once the Iranian military’s command and control falls. There’s no way we could win the asymmetric warfare that would follow, and I’m not at all saying we should even try. It’s all a pointless pile of shit that never should have been started.
That’s frankly delusional. Iran is a country of 90 million people. The US does not have the resources to, as you say, roll them. In fact, it’s pretty clear that US army isn’t even prepared for the realities of modern warfare like drones.
A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there’s no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).
But I don’t think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they’re capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.
And just to reiterate: I don’t think any of this is a good idea, and I don’t support any of it. But when you’re talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.
But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries.
The key is that due to our kleptocratic military industrial complex, we’re not able to produce these drones cheaply. Our military and its supply chains are built around producing very small numbers of very expensive weapons. We can’t even get Congress to pass a military right to repair. Contractors bilk the taxpayers for spare parts at a 10000% markup, and our system is too corrupt to end their thievery.
The hard truth is that our military isn’t actually built to win wars against competent peer or near-peer opponents. It’s built to line the pockets of defense contractors. Or, to use a car analogy, Iran is producing cheap $5k k trucks. Our military is running on $100,000 low margin, high profit SUVs.
The F35 for all purchasors, except Israel, but Including US military, requires Lockheed contractor repair services. No manual is provided with purchase.
And that’s why Iran could actually win this war. Iran doesn’t have to send an expeditionary force to lay siege to Washington DC to win this war. They just need to turtle in and hold out long enough for either US will or treasure to break.
Honestly, I think Bin Ladin will go down as the greatest strategic genius of the 21st century. For the cost of a handful of lives and a few hundred grand, he tricked a superpower into burning through trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. All he had to do was hit the superpower where it hurt the most - its sense of pride. And now, a quarter century later, we’re still stuck in Bin Ladin’s world, never having learned a damn thing. And we can’t keep this up forever. Eventually people will simply stop wanting to buy US treasuries, and the whole debt empire falls to pieces. Simply by forcing the US to spend itself into the poorhouse, Iran can defeat the US without ever striking a single target on American soil.
capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities
US strategic options made public are like 300 but instead of guarding a choke point, they rush into higher defense ratios.
But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries.
US is not among the 4 drone superpowers. Iran is one of these. US tech is old, expensive, and not high volume production.
you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.
The option they have threatened is mutual assured destruction of global economy. US has avoided Iran oil, and unsanctioned them during this war. It’s hard to see why they would escalate more, even if Israel gets to veto.
Worse. The US actually just doesn’t have enough troops to occupy Iran. We literally don’t have enough people in uniform. The US would need to institute a draft to raise the number of soldiers necessary.
If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets,
If you’ve played RTS/starcraft, zerging one unit at a time after you have started the campaign, is not effective. Zerging as a verb also refers to suiciding cheap units to overcome a big objective, and US is not playing the Zerg side. Putting entirety of US military forces in near proximity of Iran is going to continue the reported hospital filling Iran strikes on those gatherings from this weekend.
The plan you speak of is completely different than surprise assassination of ayatollah followed by quick air campaign hoping for surrender. It is something that has to be in place before the air campaign, and not one unit at a time that has 2 week lag time before it is in position.
Your description of the differences between Iraq and Iran is good, as well as your explanation of the current situation.
However, it would change significantly if the U.S. decided to stop half-assing it. If the douchebags running the show decide they want to commit to a full-scale invasion with all available assets, I think you’d see a situation more similar to Iraq. We could absolutely roll Iran’s formal military if we committed to it.
But the subsequent occupation and attempt to maintain control would be doomed to the same failures as Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those before it, but on an even larger scale. All forward progress would stop once the Iranian military’s command and control falls. There’s no way we could win the asymmetric warfare that would follow, and I’m not at all saying we should even try. It’s all a pointless pile of shit that never should have been started.
That’s frankly delusional. Iran is a country of 90 million people. The US does not have the resources to, as you say, roll them. In fact, it’s pretty clear that US army isn’t even prepared for the realities of modern warfare like drones.
A population of 90 million people is irrelevant to the question of military capability. It is absolutely relevant to a discussion about the insurgency and guerilla warfare that would inevitably follow the conventional war, but I think you and I already agree that there’s no way for the U.S. to win that (nor should we try).
But I don’t think the bits of relatively small damage Iran has done to U.S. forces in the region is convincing evidence that they’re capable of taking on the full brunt of U.S. capabilities, even without going nuclear. Launch enough drones and missiles and a few will inevitably get through. But we’ve also been using our own drones for more than 20 years now, longer than most other countries. Most importantly though, we have significantly more resources poured into everything that would follow the drones in a full-scale invasion.
And just to reiterate: I don’t think any of this is a good idea, and I don’t support any of it. But when you’re talking about the significance of damage and casualties caused by Iran, you can’t ignore the fact that the U.S. is holding back so far.
The key is that due to our kleptocratic military industrial complex, we’re not able to produce these drones cheaply. Our military and its supply chains are built around producing very small numbers of very expensive weapons. We can’t even get Congress to pass a military right to repair. Contractors bilk the taxpayers for spare parts at a 10000% markup, and our system is too corrupt to end their thievery.
The hard truth is that our military isn’t actually built to win wars against competent peer or near-peer opponents. It’s built to line the pockets of defense contractors. Or, to use a car analogy, Iran is producing cheap $5k k trucks. Our military is running on $100,000 low margin, high profit SUVs.
The F35 for all purchasors, except Israel, but Including US military, requires Lockheed contractor repair services. No manual is provided with purchase.
And that’s why Iran could actually win this war. Iran doesn’t have to send an expeditionary force to lay siege to Washington DC to win this war. They just need to turtle in and hold out long enough for either US will or treasure to break.
Honestly, I think Bin Ladin will go down as the greatest strategic genius of the 21st century. For the cost of a handful of lives and a few hundred grand, he tricked a superpower into burning through trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. All he had to do was hit the superpower where it hurt the most - its sense of pride. And now, a quarter century later, we’re still stuck in Bin Ladin’s world, never having learned a damn thing. And we can’t keep this up forever. Eventually people will simply stop wanting to buy US treasuries, and the whole debt empire falls to pieces. Simply by forcing the US to spend itself into the poorhouse, Iran can defeat the US without ever striking a single target on American soil.
US strategic options made public are like 300 but instead of guarding a choke point, they rush into higher defense ratios.
US is not among the 4 drone superpowers. Iran is one of these. US tech is old, expensive, and not high volume production.
The option they have threatened is mutual assured destruction of global economy. US has avoided Iran oil, and unsanctioned them during this war. It’s hard to see why they would escalate more, even if Israel gets to veto.
They don’t need to take on the full brunt of the US, they just need to keep the Strait closed to US-friendly traffic until the US economy collapses.
I don’t see any evidence to suggest that Tue US has superior military capability to Iran.
Worse. The US actually just doesn’t have enough troops to occupy Iran. We literally don’t have enough people in uniform. The US would need to institute a draft to raise the number of soldiers necessary.
If you’ve played RTS/starcraft, zerging one unit at a time after you have started the campaign, is not effective. Zerging as a verb also refers to suiciding cheap units to overcome a big objective, and US is not playing the Zerg side. Putting entirety of US military forces in near proximity of Iran is going to continue the reported hospital filling Iran strikes on those gatherings from this weekend.
The plan you speak of is completely different than surprise assassination of ayatollah followed by quick air campaign hoping for surrender. It is something that has to be in place before the air campaign, and not one unit at a time that has 2 week lag time before it is in position.