Every militant group in Iraq will see this as a direct threat, every civilian in Iraq will understand that they will never be allowed their freedom. Within hours the larger proportion of the American forces in Iraq will find themselves taken hostage. Yes there will be firefights, but irrespective of whether we say it's 140k or 200k or even 350k armed personnel in iraq, they are outnumbered. Massively.
Equally, the only way the US seems able to win at sea on paper is by cheating. Any analysis of probable Iranian resistance, as opposed to the one the americans want, shows the US losing one or even two of their carriers. A devastating humiliation.
Of course, I could be imagining things, I had ideas about how Saddam could succesfully resist that never happened, so I could be totally misinterpreting how iraqis would respond to the bombing of Iran. Of course, we don't have to say, "he'd have to be mad to do this..." cos we that he is mad enough.
But in my opinion, this is a high-risk strategy with little to be gained. And yea, if I was the iranians I'd have some nasty (conventional) surprises parked in various sites around the US too. keep to the Fen Causeway
It's why I genuinely think the American Empire will fall if they cross the Euphrates into Iran. keep to the Fen Causeway
you are the media you consume.
And don't start getting all defensive about it: it's not as if it's unique to USians - look at the crap Europe is taking from its leaders.
OMG, have you found our System of Checks and Balances in your couch cushions or something? I've been looking for those for alomst 7 years now. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Armour and mechanised infantry are one thing: the support infrastructure of the entrenched US army is a different animal entirely.
And remember, if need be the Air Force and carrier avaition can do most of the real fighting, at least if enemy civilian casualties don't matter. The Army can just motor out, trucks and all. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Even assuming everything is left behind, it would be trivially easy for Iran to lob a few missiles at any convoy. And IEDs can be fantastically destructive - you don't just take out a truck or two, you block the escape route, which slows everything and everyone down, creates useful ambush opportunities, and generally plays hell with any concept of orderly evacuation.
Air cover is useless unless you try to eliminate all traffic on the roads and in a wide corridor around them, permanently, for the duration of the retreat.
There's also the small point that if there's a retreat Iraq will have been handed over, at least in part, to Iran - which might not be popular politically.
Also, unless you're planning to patrol the entire length of the convoy, which will be many, many miles long and unlikely to be practical, there will always be people wandering into your restricted area and leaving presents behind.
And if you're abandoing a whole load of ammunition and materiel to make a quick getaway, you've just armed your opponents with your own equipment.
There is no good here. However you look at it, any forced retreat is going to be a disaster of epic dimensions.
Ammunition or other things left behind is not handed over to the enemy - it is blown up. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
As for the desert route - with what trucks, exactly?
The big airports will be the first missile targets, and as soon as those are gone - and it's wonderfully easy to crater a runaway - the supply lines are cut and the clock is ticking.
Best of luck with a quick getaway after that.
That is, beyond the Very Bad Idea of bombing Iran in the first place. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The bottom line is that after a serious attack on Iran, most of the US army ceases to exist as a viable fighting force. The best that can happen is some kind of semi-successful retreat - which would be a military fiasco and a political disaster, castrating forever the fond image that the US has of itself as a paragon of force projection machismo.
The worst is very much worse.
after all the Marine corps appears to already see the looming disaster and are maneuvering to find themselves somewhere else
Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq - New York Times
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials. The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.
The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
Besides which, you underestimate the dangers posed by determined irregular resistance. Ask the Germans who fought Tito.
Finally, William Lind, a US conservative and military freak, is much less sanguine about the US position in Iraq than you are, and thinks that Iran could roll up US forces in short order. US supply lines are very exposed. But this has already been pointed out here.
Do not fall for Hollywood BS. The US military fights really well on the silver screen, but not in real life. Check out Stan Goff's report about the death of Pat Tillman. Goff is an ex-Ranger himself, and yet his account completely strips US 'elite' units of any combat mystique. These were people who got stressed over a broken-down vehicle and one rocket fired by a couple of teenagers that blew up 500 metres away ... so they shot one of their own three times in the face when he came back to investigate. That's the sort of fire discipline that came from an elite unit. Go crazy and shoot one of your own mates.
With talent like that, massive failure is assured as soon as determined resistance is met.
Middle class largely out of it, working class obviously the backbone, high bourgeoisie occupying officers roles, not a citizen army but in name only. Just waiting to get their asses kicked by a real citizen army. In this light, Iraq might be seen as a Sebastopol, a relatively long conflict with no real winners which served mostly to piss off France's most important ally, Russia.
We can only hope that when Sedan comes, the aftermath will be equally as bloodless. Though I can't imagine Bush (or his successor) in exile in England. Where oh where would such a man go?
Walk around the US a bit, take a look at bellies which recall images, at least for me, of the excesses of Rome, and ask yourself if the US could in fact field more than just a small force of elite citizen soldiers. No, without technology, there's no there there. All the rot of Rome, with none of the glory. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
You're talking about the army that did the repression of the Paris Commune... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Initially, the republic was restored, but they made the mistake of fighting on. If they had sued for peace, things may have been different, but, being the type of men of a certain class that they were, they didn't. That's the logic of these things.
But the coup that removed the monarchy was itself almost entirely bloodless. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
I'm afraid we won't get to see Dubya wandering in a Hummer, on the battlefield of the Najrah defeat, in desperation over his lost war and legacy... That's what helped the creation of the republic after the Sedan defeat. And don't forget that the third republic was initially monarchist... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
It's a nice though to imagine such Bush wanderings, but I imagine him more somewhere in Uruguay, far away from horses though, he's afraid of them. They might bite.
Monarchy, empire, six of one, demi-dozen of the other by that point in French history. In fact, Nap III needed that war in order to ensure ascension of his descendance, which is why many refer to the period as the imperial monarchy. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Look, guerillas are fine. They win as long as they don't lose. That is, as long as they hang around, the enemy will leave and they will win.
But they can't beat conventional forces on the battlefield. That's just what the conventional forces want to, as the result is utter carnage.
They have to go conventional themselves at that point, like at Dien Bien Phu or the last offensive against South Vietnam.
This will obviously not happen in Iraq at this juncture. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
But Iran's is.
And if it isn't Iran, there will eventually be another. That's the logic of what the US has found itself in, and eventually it will play out, as it always has.
Hopefully not on a battlefield, but here again, it's hard to see how this is avoidable. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
If the Iranians are mad enough to fight a conventional war against the Americans, they will be ground to dust. That's it.
If they fight unconventional (read Hizb Allah, and google Paul van Ripen and Millenium Challenge 2002) there will be huge problems for the Americans, but not huge enough to make retreat impossible. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
It's one thing to fight your neighbor who has the advantage of knowing the terrain as well as you, and whose supply lines are at the very least not exposed and primarily within controlled, sovereign territory.
It is quite another to fight an isolated and demoralized expeditionary force whose supply lines are very exposed and primarily passing through increasingly hostile territory.
I think if you are suggesting that US troops in Iraq and, importantly, allied civilian personel, will be anything but sitting ducks, you are sadly mistaken. I mean, I saw Rambo in Afghanistan also, but the reality is something different... Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Stan Goff: The Fog of Fame
The first of three parts on the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death. In 1979, after a break in my Army service and having recouped my sergeant's stripes as a mechanized cavalry scout in Fort Carson, I volunteered for the Rangers. Off to Ranger School I went, and upon completion I was assigned to 3rd Platoon, Company A (Alpha Company), 2nd Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Each of the three rifle platoons (organizations of around 40 light infantrymen) had nicknames, in this case, First to Fight, the Blacksheep, and Third Herd. A Company, known for its iron discipline, was called the Alpha-bots. When I left there in 1981 to become a tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, I never had a notion that I might somehow be entangled with Alpha Company again ... two-and-a-half decades later. Brothers Pat and Kevin Tillman were Alpha-bots, assigned to the Blacksheep (2nd Platoon), when Pat was killed by friendly fire on April 22, 2004 near a tiny village called Manah in Paktia Province, Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. When I was a member of the adjacent platoon in the same building, Pat was a baby.
The first of three parts on the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death.
In 1979, after a break in my Army service and having recouped my sergeant's stripes as a mechanized cavalry scout in Fort Carson, I volunteered for the Rangers. Off to Ranger School I went, and upon completion I was assigned to 3rd Platoon, Company A (Alpha Company), 2nd Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington. Each of the three rifle platoons (organizations of around 40 light infantrymen) had nicknames, in this case, First to Fight, the Blacksheep, and Third Herd. A Company, known for its iron discipline, was called the Alpha-bots. When I left there in 1981 to become a tactics instructor at the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, I never had a notion that I might somehow be entangled with Alpha Company again ... two-and-a-half decades later.
Brothers Pat and Kevin Tillman were Alpha-bots, assigned to the Blacksheep (2nd Platoon), when Pat was killed by friendly fire on April 22, 2004 near a tiny village called Manah in Paktia Province, Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. When I was a member of the adjacent platoon in the same building, Pat was a baby.
This is the second in a three-part series on the death of Pat Tillman. Click here to read the first installment: Pat Tillman Everyone's Political Football. This is where there are conflicting stories, partly because of the "fog of war," but more importantly to evade possible prosecutions... and the Pandora's box of counter-accusation a recrimination that might be opened by prosecutions. I won't belabor the minutiae.
This is the second in a three-part series on the death of Pat Tillman. Click here to read the first installment: Pat Tillman Everyone's Political Football.
This is where there are conflicting stories, partly because of the "fog of war," but more importantly to evade possible prosecutions... and the Pandora's box of counter-accusation a recrimination that might be opened by prosecutions.
I won't belabor the minutiae.
Part 3 (concluding) of The Fog of Fame: the Death of Pat Tillman. There is the cover-up (of the fratricide). There is the original lie (that Pat was killed in an intense combat engagement). There is the layering of plausible denial in case the stories unravel. The motives of the spin-meisters were to pin a recruiting poster to Pat's coffin. The motive of the cover-up (at least one of them) was to preserve the mystique of the US Army Rangers -- the elite of the infantry -- as flawless, disciplined, steely-eyed commandos.
Part 3 (concluding) of The Fog of Fame: the Death of Pat Tillman.
There is the cover-up (of the fratricide). There is the original lie (that Pat was killed in an intense combat engagement). There is the layering of plausible denial in case the stories unravel.
The motives of the spin-meisters were to pin a recruiting poster to Pat's coffin. The motive of the cover-up (at least one of them) was to preserve the mystique of the US Army Rangers -- the elite of the infantry -- as flawless, disciplined, steely-eyed commandos.
Operation Anabasis
Still, the Americans defeated them on the western front, due to the American superior numbers and superior firepower.
If the US Army of '44 could beat the Wehrmacht, the US Army of '07 can beat some ragtag Iraqis. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
Sure, the US Armed forces are still stuck in the French second generation mentality (infantry advance, artillery conquers!), but that won't matter much here as they are not up against, well, the Wehrmacht (or the Bundesmacht, as an op-ed in the IHT which demanded a more aggressive role for the Bundesheer in Afghanistan called it).
The individual courage and skill of American soldiers and Marines should not be underestimated. Reports I've read for example from the second battle of Fallujah shows that. The Americans are great at urban warfare, as long as they are allowed to leave only ruins behind.
Anyway, it will boil down to supply. And no one does supply better than the Americans.
By the way, I'm a great fan of William Lind. And I think he has a very good point. The US force in Iraq could indeed be lost if they are not given free hands, which will mean lots of civilian death and destruction. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Witness the fact that the American expeditionary force took fewer casualties on their trip to Berlin than the French army did during the German trip to Paris four years earlier. This does not speak to me of a smash-until-something-gives approach. It speaks to me of a pushover.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Relevant quote:
But America certainly could do it--and has given the idea some serious thought. "The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran's nuclear infrastructure is formidable," says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. "The question is, what then?" NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.
And if the conflict escalates, it can quickly become possible that the US will use tactical nukes, if they don't do it on first strike already.
"The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.
Hmmm there's several meanings in that phrase. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
A spat between Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman over Mrs. Clinton's inquiries about Pentagon plans for the future withdrawal of troops in Iraq -- and whether talk of such plans was emboldening the enemy -- drew a response from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. In a letter to Mrs. Clinton sent yesterday, Mr. Gates offered his assurance that contingency planning "is indeed taking place with my active involvement as well as that of senior military and civilian officials and our commanders in the field." Mr. Gates added that he considers such planning "to be a priority for this Department."
In a letter to Mrs. Clinton sent yesterday, Mr. Gates offered his assurance that contingency planning "is indeed taking place with my active involvement as well as that of senior military and civilian officials and our commanders in the field." Mr. Gates added that he considers such planning "to be a priority for this Department."
I doubt the entire US presence in Iraq could retreat to Saudi Arabia or whatever with the current fuel supplies, even if this is speculation.
Supply lines must be reopened and kept open to maintain operations. This should not be too much of a hassle if enough force is allowed to be applied. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
U.S. Out How?
It includes a section on logistics. But it assumes more or less peaceful circumstances.
Right now they only survive using huge lorry convoys across the desert. Such things oculd not survive a widespread insurrection involving most of the population. keep to the Fen Causeway
The US troops can be withdrawn into heavily defended bases quickly enough.
The heavily armed bases can be pounded by medium range missiles easily enough.
Militarily, this can only be a disaster.
You have a poorly equipped and significantly demoralised army with very fragile supply lines in the middle of hostile territory, surrounded by guerillas, next to a hostile state with long-range force projection opportunities, which also has the potential to control one of the most significant resource supply choke points on the planet.
I'm guessing, on some wild speculation, that a resounding victory seems unlikely.
Yes there will be firefights, but irrespective of whether we say it's 140k or 200k or even 350k armed personnel in iraq, they are outnumbered. Massively.
Even if their supply lines are cut (which they most likely would be), the Americans can blast themselves out of Iraq and into Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. The US Navy and Air Force can make sure there is not a single living thing within 20 km of the retreating columns. With tactical nukes if need be. Just button down the tanks and turn the overpressure systems on.
And then we have air supply. Sure, it doesn't have the best of reputations, but Göring did not have the immense airlift capacity of the US Air Force anno 2007.
Even if all these things wouldn't be enough, a relief force (Der Manstein kommt!) can quickly be assembled in Kuwait, sent in with working supply lines and connect with the main force, holding a corridor open.
Sure, they would have to leave massive amounts of stuff behind, but hostages? Never.
Hey, this does sound pretty exciting. At least it'll be great TV... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
You're dreaming the same dreams of overwhelming force that led the arrogant fools in the White House into this situation. You're playing the wrong video game.
Just ask Genghiz Khan.
And well, too bad if the non-tankers will have to have some fallout land on them, but war is dangerous. They knew that when they joined up. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Iran has an air force. It might not have an air force for long, but I doubt it's the pushover it might be supposed to be.
Iran also has missiles, is more than happy to use them.
Zip. Bang. No more convoy. Insurgents have fun picking over the pieces. Game over.
We're talking about a quarter of a million people or so, who not only have to be moved, but also require food and water.
You don't need to be a military genius to understand that the best possible outcome would be one of the most humiliating retreats in the long list of humiliating US retreats in recent history.
The middling outcome. would be Stalingrad, only with sunblock. (If they can find any.)
The worst is a friendly nuclear exchange between irritated superpowers.
The Iranian Air Force will be destroyed within hours.
Convoys might well be hit by Iranian rockets, but that's war for you.
As long as no care is taken to spare Iraqi civilians (fire at anything that moves reasonably close to a convoy), the operation is very doable. Especially if there is some reasonable preparation, but consdiering the Bushies, we shouldn't count reasonableness.
Anyway, this is what the US armed forces are good at. No counter-insurgency, no fancy blitzkrieg maneuovering, just excellent logistics work while driving straight ahead blowing everything up. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
This time the Americans will fight something even more feeble than the Iraqi Army, namely Iraqi civvies with guns.
Mogadishu, anyone?
The kind of firepower available in this operation is immense in comparison. The question is not if there is enough firepower but if the American soldiers are allowed to use it, as doing that will entail big civilian casualties. But what will a few more tens or hundreds of thousands of dead civilians mean as this war has already killed 1-1.5 million? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I don't know, those Iraqi civvies seem to have been more successful than the Iraqi Army at both killing and injuring Troops and destroying armored vehicles.
No counter-insurgency,
So they are suddenly no longer going to be fighting insurgents? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
So they are suddenly no longer going to be fighting insurgents?
It's not like the WSJ hasn't editorialised on the need to get genocidal in order to beat the insurgency. We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
I'm thinking more like in "collateral damage and we just don't care". Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Bribe'em, nuke'em or leave'em the Hell alone. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I'm here in the Genghiz Khan no restraint mindset.
The rest of the world would protest immensely against this kind of WW2/Vietnam blow everything up style, but since has worldwide protests fazed the Americans? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
We have no troops (no draft), no supplies, no game plan, no idea who is on first, and we're basically getting our asses kicked.
Sadly, directors of Hollywood movies come up with better strategery than our current Administration.
Wait. I am onto something here. Put Clint Eastwood in the role of Sec. of Defense, and instead of a draft, hold a casting call for extras. Get some producers to put up the money for the war. Then and only then does America win in Iraq or Iran or anywhere, really at this point. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
lets try poularity instead. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I guess there are large supply depots in Kuwait anyway, and it's not like fuel is going to be a problem... Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The big problem would be the military supplies. on a war footing just for the real troops you're going to need in the region of 20,000 tons of supplies per day then you have to supply the contractors on top of that. (so probably in the region of twice as much)
Getting the right sorts of fuel to the right places will be a problem. Fuels one of the biggest supply headaches. Without that the US militarys combat capability drops away very sharply. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
That is after all what they do today (or well, from Umm Qassr, byt the difference should not be big). This new situation with mugh greater insurgent activity could be countered with indiscrimante firepower.
Of course, there will be convoy losses, but that is not of great importance. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I would worry a lot more over naval casualties. Losing an aircraft carrier is not at all unimaginable.
Still, that would not be a critical blow either. From a military perspective. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
but Göring did not have the immense airlift capacity of the US Air Force anno 2007.
The entire US military airlift capacity, if you withdraw it from everywhere else (Afghanistan, Korea) has about enough capacity to supply about third of the US forces in Iraq if it is being used in combat and movement operations. This capacity is only reached by activiating the emergency measures that allow the US to take over a range of comercial transport aircraft.
The US airforces transport abilities are at nowhere near the level they were at after the second world war which allowed the Berlin airlift to happen. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
And remember, you don't have to move all the forces out at the same time.
Just set up a corridor and move at leisure. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Just set up a corridor and move at leisure.
I think "At leisure" is going to be a different order of problem all together. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
