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.
you are the media you consume.
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?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
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.
