US special forces 'inside Iran'

[Shogun Gunner]

I prefer an "Iron Chef" motif, please.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


You don't know what you're talking about. While Iran would present a much larger problem than Iraq as far as an insurgency, its military stands as little chance against the U.S. military than Sadam's did.

Well, not really, as the insurgency shows.

Saddams army fell so easily not only because of the wide technological disparity, but because the army melted away. The significant casualties suffered by the military against a small force poorly equipped show that troops with high morale, even when badly equiped, can make for a tought fight. Of course, there is also the issue of Iran's terrain, which is not nice and flat like Iraq's, but mountanous.

So, IF the Iranian army stood to fight to the death the war would be a LOT harder and more vicious, specially if the US had to take a large urban area from a trully determined enemy made up of regular forces equipped as regular forces (better body armor, better and heavier weapons, better C&C). Baghdad is a city of 5 million. Tehran is a city of 14 million.

[Winston]

The Iraqi Army had high morale?

Damn, somebody should've told them back when it could have actually made a difference.

[GePap]

No, he Iraqi army had very low morale and

Saddams army fell so easily not only because of the wide technological disparity, but because the army melted away.

Was that so difficult to understand?

I will draw a picture next time-maybe that will help.

[Chemical Ollie]

Iranians troops have body armour? Why? Doesn't really fit with their culture.

Last time they were at war they used school children as martures to clear paths through the mine fields.

[Winston]

Originally posted by GePap
Was that so difficult to understand?

No, but this bit presented more of a challenge,

Originally posted by GePap
The significant casualties suffered by the military against a small force poorly equipped show that troops with high morale, even when badly equiped, can make for a tought fight.

... hence the response. You really should post what you mean to say, it works much better that way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Iranians troops have body armour? Why? Doesn't really fit with their culture.

Last time they were at war they used school children as martures to clear paths through the mine fields.

Last time they did so it was right after a revolution that decimated their standing army, followed by a quick foreign attack at the same time their main arms supplier from before cut them off.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Winston


No, but this bit presented more of a challenge,



... hence the response. You really should post what you mean to say, it works much better that way.

If you noted, the begins of my post was:

Well, not really, as the insurgency shows.

The insurgents are the small, poorly equipped force, and the US lost more men taking Fallujah back from them than any single battle against Saddam's army during our campaign.

[Winston]

Ah, I can't find anything on which to disagree with you then.

But I've a feeling this strange situation will soon be corrected.

[chequita guevara]

It should be the CIA doing this, but other than that, I'm not too upset about it. Given that Iran shows no signs of slowing it's quest for nukes, and the West's determination not to let them have them, this was to be expected.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap


Last time they did so it was right after a revolution that decimated their standing army, followed by a quick foreign attack at the same time their main arms supplier from before cut them off.

I still doubt they even have helmets. Better weapons, surely, but not better body armour. It's not their culture.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I still doubt they even have helmets. Better weapons, surely, but not better body armour. It's not their culture.

Yeah, but they have plenty of fanatics, still. I don't doubt we'd knock them over relatively quickly. We'd only be able to do it by abandoning all our other combat committments though.

[DanS]

It's not in the "bowels of bureaucracy," it's within the senior leadership of the Pentagon itself. Rumsfeld has already purged those who are nonbelievers, and now is doing the same with the CIA.

As I recall, moving some recon from CIA to Defense has been discussed for a while and was a relatively amicable discussion, even during Tenet. This discussion was covered by the WaPo, at least. Why would the CIA leak this information, when the discussion has already been vetted publicly and CIA has been open to the move, although maybe not convinced of the wisdom of the move entirely?

Maybe this story is due to the possibility that some in Defense don't want the job. I don't know why this would be so.

[DanS]

Dan, think sleek, fast, high flying planes... that the Soviets were not supposed to have weapons capable of shooting down. Think of ending a summit. Think of show trials. I'm sure you'll get it in one.

Thanks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I still doubt they even have helmets. Better weapons, surely, but not better body armour. It's not their culture.

What BS.

The regular army most certainly has helmets, and whatever body armor they decide to buy. I am sure the large paramilitary forces are underequipped and don't, but do not mistake the Regular army of several hundred thousand to the paramilitary forces of several hundred thousands.