What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

[Patroklos]

I believe Saddam thought something similar when he invaded Iran....

He thought he was going to devestate the US armed forces by invading Iran?

I have the highest respect for the value of airpower. But it does not actually make our forces omnipotent.

Oh, are we going to take the line that if the US loses one warplane and the Iranians suffer 100,000 casualties the Iranians come out on top?

The US has serious problems maintaining control of Baghdad. The idea that we can take over 200 miles of Iranian coastline with impunity using a couple of MEUs is ludicrous.

Likely for us there isn't 200 miles of coastline on the Iranian side of the SOH, nore are there any major cites, and even if there were we wouldn't have to occupy them (or go anywere near them) to keep the straights open.

I think people might be underestimating Irans anti-air capability. It takes time to take that out with cruise missles and stealth attack.

For the entire coutntry, yeah it might take a few weeks. For the small region of Iran that the SOH makes up that also houses not a single strategic infrastructure asset, a day or two.

People also need to realize that an attack on Iran would be a major war, which means our parameters for success change (no more we lost one plane OMG ITS A SLAUGHTER crap). I expect in reducing the airdefenses of all of Iran we would lose a dzen or more aircraft. For the Hormuz region only, maybe none.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think people might be underestimating Irans anti-air capability. It takes time to take that out with cruise missles and stealth attack.

what? maybe twice as long as Iraq's? So 20 hours maybe? Oh wait! We aren't trying to take out the whole country! Just an isolated area...so 4 hours? Good point Kid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Let's try a little exercise, GePap. If I never claimed something, I believe it must therefore follow that I have no evidence to support that position. That possibly leads to the conclusion that I don't believe it.

A yes or no would suffice, and of course, also put you more definititely on record.

[DinoDoc]

Guys. The Air Force or Navy air assets doesn't take or hold territory on the battlefield. This discussion is kinda stupid.

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Did I say Iran, or the costs of the straights of Hormuz? Actually, half the cost, because the other half is UAE territory.


Why not look at the size of the striaghts and then get back to me. 5000 is more than enough to occupy the important parts that host anti-ship missle batteries. We don't need to occupy the few towns that are their, just set up camp in defensible positions supported by a few thousand airframes and wait until Iran gives up.

If you don't control the whole coast, tankers can't get through the Gulf. Oil over, man. Oil over.

What is normal attition for soldiers in unihabited parts of Iraq? 0%?

No it isn't. Attrition in the US would eliminate the effectiveness of many units in a year without replacement. Invading a well defended country filled with fanatical extremists will significantly shorten that period of time.

The coast of the straights are basically a strip of isolated shorline set up against a large region of mountains. Or in other words, something easy to take and then defend. Of course all we really need to do is take care of the anti ship missiles. You seem to think we are talking about taking over Iran.

What do we do when the Iranians counter-attack Iraq? Or the UAE? Or Afghanistan? And what about the rest of coast and the small boats attacking tankers?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Guys. The Air Force or Navy air assets doesn't take or hold territory on the battlefield. This discussion is kinda stupid.

Unless you are talking about them as support functions for ground forces...which we were.

Further, in the context of keeping the straights open, bot naval and air assets would be very significant in accomplishing the mission.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Sadaam had Iran completely beaten once we started supplying him with intel and was simply to lame to finish it...and therefore gave the Iranians time to rebuild.

What are you talking about? The war went back and forth with both sides at times making gains. Yes, the Iraqis had a spate of victories in the very end, but they were limited, and their ground gains at the end were far smaller than their initial gains in 1980, which they had promptly lost.

And yes, 5000 marines and their support should easily be able to control that area from a military point of view. With a 1000 aircraft and the naval forces there, it would be interesting t find the Iranian who had the guts to fire up his radar. The idea that Iran's full military might could be brought to bear in one of the most isolated regions of their county is what is ludicrous here.

I am sorry, but the ides that the US would put any boots on the ground and create a tiny little beachhead is silly.

Whatever such a tiny beachhead could accomplish could be better achieved by the Navy alone, without the costs of supplying a beachead and the risk to the forces on the ground, and without the political ramification of putting ground troops on Iranian soil.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Vanguard


If you don't control the whole coast, tankers can't get through the Gulf. Oil over, man. Oil over.

So tell me, how some ak47 armed iranians that happen to be on the coast of SOH stop tankers?

What do we do when the Iranians counter-attack Iraq? Or the UAE? Or Afghanistan? And what about the rest of coast and the small boats attacking tankers?

THAT'S more like it

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vanguard


If you don't control the whole coast, tankers can't get through the Gulf. Oil over, man. Oil over.

Even if they control the coast is that going to stop the anti-ship missles?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


What are you talking about? The war went back and forth with both sides at times making gains. Yes, the Iraqis had a spate of victories in the very end, but they were limited, and their ground gains at the end were far smaller than their initial gains in 1980, which they had promptly lost.

In the early part of the war, Iranian forces were devestated and the way to Teheran was open. Sadaam, mysteriously many say, held his troops in place until the Iranians could reallign their defenses.

I am sorry, but the ides that the US would put any boots on the ground and create a tiny little beachhead is silly.

Whatever such a tiny beachhead could accomplish could be better achieved by the Navy alone, without the costs of supplying a beachead and the risk to the forces on the ground, and without the political ramification of putting ground troops on Iranian soil.

You make excellent points, but we are assuming that Iran was actually shooting at oil tankers and trying to choke off the West's oil...what are the political ramifications of that?

[Patroklos]

If you don't control the whole coast, tankers can't get through the Gulf. Oil over, man. Oil over.

I have to explain this every two months or so, we are about do for it again.

The Gulf is a certain width. The range of Iranian C-802s have a certain range. That range happens to be less than half that width in most cases.

But that’s not really important. You see, you need a target to shoot at, so unless you have a radar that can see the range of the missile (and turning it on won't mean an instant JDAM strike, or that you are not being jammed anyway) your effective interdiction range is the range of your radar. Normal surface search radars on ships are 32nm. Of course that range is dictated by the curvature of the earth and thus the height of the array, not the power of the signal. So, assuming array towers can be built higher on shore, increase that range to 50 or so nautical miles.

Of course large radar antennas mounted on much larger towers make very good targets. The kind the US has statilite pictures of already and get destroyed a few hours after hostilities start.

So, what we end up is only half the Gulf being within missile range, and only half of that being within surveillance range. Is there any reason why the tankers need to unnecessarily travel within AS missle range of Iran?

No it isn't. Attrition in the US would eliminate the effectiveness of many units in a year without replacement. Invading a well defended country filled with fanatical extremists will significantly shorten that period of time.

1.) Why would we have to occupy the land any more than a few months, let alone a few years?

2.) Why is it beyond the means of the US to replace losses to the Marines, or hell reinforce them with 20,000 more for that matter?

3.) Attrition of US forces in Iraq is something on the order of .001% a year while occupying the entire country and almost all population centers.

4.) There are no population centers on the Hormuz of significance, nor it there were any reason to occupy them if they existed.

5.) I think you fail to recognize just how baron that area is.

What do we do when the Iranians counter-attack Iraq? Or the UAE? Or Afghanistan? And what about the rest of coast and the small boats attacking tankers?

1.) Iraq: You mean when they cross a large expanse of open, unpopulated terrain? Thank God and light up the LANTERNs maybe?

2.) Afghanistan: You mean divert their resources away from our axis of attack while slowly picking their way slowly through an expanse of inhospitable terrain to attack areas not at all vital to our efforts in Iran itself? Thank god and light up the LANTERNs maybe?

3.) UAE: You mean when they completely fail to dislodge our marines or deter our airpower at all they will magically attack the UAE over those same Marines and through that same airpower while magically crossing a USN controlled body of water to conduct an amphibious assault to boot? Thank God and laugh at their antics maybe?

And what about the rest of coast and the small boats attacking tankers?

The small boats are only effective in the Hormuz, and in an envelope even smaller than their anti ship missiles.

And guess what naval airpower really likes more than anything else? How about under armed easily identifiable targets outside the range of land based SAM defenses.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
[q] Originally posted by GePap

In the early part of the war, Iranian forces were devestated and the way to Teheran was open. Sadaam, mysteriously many say, held his troops in place until the Iranians could reallign their defenses.

The way to Tehran was not open, and the Iraqis failed to gain control of the air.
What is your source?

You make excellent points, but we are assuming that Iran was actually shooting at oil tankers and trying to choke off the West's oil...what are the political ramifications of that?

A small beachhead held by a few thousand marines would not stop rocket fire from the shore any more effectively than having warships on station. Also, the more useful Iranian weapons would be mines and their submarine fleet, or even better, scuttle ships there to create a hazzard to shipping. All things that a bunch of marines would not stop. And if not, they could simply lob Scuds and other missiles at the oil fields and ports in KSA and UAE. That would really stir up a hornets nest.

[Patroklos]

Whatever such a tiny beachhead could accomplish could be better achieved by the Navy alone, without the costs of supplying a beachead and the risk to the forces on the ground, and without the political ramification of putting ground troops on Iranian soil.

Agreed, but it seems some here don't believe that the US could keep the SOH open at all, let alone with just Navy/Air Force itself.

And assuming we are already attacking Iran, they are already trying to attack neutral shipping, that the SOH coast is remote and really only accessible by sea anyway, is in the precise spot where it would be easiest to supply, and there are few people there to resist/occupy I think you are overestimating the risks.

As to public opinion, I think when oil hits $400 a barrel due to Iran attacking neutral shipping people won't give a crap about a couple square miles of the most remote portion of Iran being taken.

A small beachhead held by a few thousand marines would not stop rocket fire from the shore any more effectively than having warships on station. Also, the more useful Iranian weapons would be mines and their submarine fleet, or even better, scuttle ships there to create a hazard to shipping. All things that a bunch of marines would not stop. And if not, they could simply lob Scuds and other missiles at the oil fields and ports in KSA and UAE. That would really stir up a hornets nest.

If all we had to worry about was rocket fire from the shore we wouldn't even bother, we would just laugh at them from the sea.

The Submarines would be useful, but because they have only three it is guaranteed one will be in drydock (destroyed shortly), assuming we attack first one will be pier side (destroyed shortly) and one on patrol (two maybe if they attack) which would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. In any case they would be trouble in the Gulf of Oman. The SOH is too restricted for them to operate very effectively and they would have better effect elsewhere.

Mines, yeah, they would be a problem too. But we might notice that don't you think? Why is going to lay them? There would be instant air cover in the SOH so unless they do so secretly before they attack us it will again not be an insurmountable problem. Their submarines can lay mines, but if they are doing that instead of harassing shipping in the GOO, then that is a blessing.

The hulk thing isn't plausible; the straights are too wide and deep for that to work in short order. It would take weeks for unhindered access to accomplish.

I fail to see how you believe Marines occupying the missile sites would not keep them from shooting missiles. Again, unguided rockets are no real threat.

SCUDS?

Lets see I am Iran being attacked by a superpower, why don't I bring in some third parties against me for good measure?

No, even if they did the UAE has enough of a military to keep Iran largely at bay itself, let alone with the full might of the US in play. If you honestly think a Scud is going to hit an oil platform or even the district of a port facility let alone the docks themselves, dream on.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow.

Why is the blame America first gang so pessimistic? Your arguments should be that the US should not invade Iran because it's the wrong thing to do not because you think the American military sucks so much.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The Gulf is a certain width. The range of Iranian C-802s have a certain range. That range happens to be less than half that width in most cases.

You would still have to control a significant portion of land near the SOH.