What if they were American?

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

But if something is a political and economic disaster, what does it matter if it isnt a military one?

I was just refuting that Iran could cut down the US military. A loss is a loss is a loss but knowing why you lossed is important in figuring out how to win the next time.

And it would have a very dire effect on our military capacity, just as the Iraq war has had.

How? And how as Iraq affected our military capacity? We have lossed ~3000 troops which is a drop in the bucket and material losses can and are easily replaced.

 

[JollyRoger]

How? And how as Iraq affected our military capacity? We have lossed ~3000 troops which is a drop in the bucket and material losses can and are easily replaced.

You are just counting deaths. You are not factoring in those that have been wounded to the extent of no longer being able to serve, lost equipment, and the future ability to recruit in the Guard and Reserves due to the way they have been mis-used in the Iraq War.

 

[nc-1701]

How? And how as Iraq affected our military capacity? We have lossed ~3000 troops which is a drop in the bucket and material losses can and are easily replaced.

It's not a number of troops thing. The damage to our military isn't caused by enemy attacks, but by the desert. Simple wear an' tear on our vehicles from being deployed in such crappy conditions. As well as the fact that we have like 450,000 troops either in Iraq, coming back, or going. A huge strain on our rather small military force.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It's not a number of troops thing. The damage to our military isn't caused by enemy attacks, but by the desert. Simple wear an' tear on our vehicles from being deployed in such crappy conditions. As well as the fact that we have like 450,000 troops either in Iraq, coming back, or going. A huge strain on our rather small military force.

Vehicals can be replaced. The 450,000 troops involved with Iraq have not been killed off. If all equipment in personel in Iraq were lost it could be better argued that Iraq has reduced the US role as the military superpower. (but we would still have a couple million people active or reserved in the military + the largest navy).

 

[marioh]

They certainly would've taken American soldiers if they had the chance.

They've been dying to catch one in Iranian territory during a covert op, but had no luck. So, they turned to the easiest target they could find.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Fugitive, theres one thing youre overlooking which is much more important than the number of American dead, or how many of our vehicles have been destroyed:

We're a democracy. No people in a democracy vote for having their sons, daughters, husbands, fathers and wives shipped off to a foreign country and put in harms way, when the war could have been easily avoided if our civilian leadership had more intelligence and imagination. End the democracy in the US, and then we can wage all the wars you want, forever, or until we're destroyed.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

aFugitive, theres one thing youre overlooking which is much more important than the number of American dead, or how many of our vehicles have been destroyed:

We're a democracy. No people in a democracy vote for having their sons, daughters, husbands, fathers and wives shipped off to a foreign country and put in harms way, when the war could have been easily avoided if our civilian leadership had more intelligence and imagination. End the democracy in the US, and then we can wage all the wars you want, forever, or until we're destroyed.

I agree with this. This what I have been saying all along. But the idea that Iran could end the United States' status as a military superpower or cut the United States military "down to size" is ludicrous.

 

[Godwynn]

I am sure everyone has heard about the story the British sailors taken by Iran. So, I am curious. Do you think that Iran would have dared to apprehend them if they had been part of the US Navy instead of the British Navy?

Vote and discuss.

We would still do the wrong thing and not take them back forcefully.

 

[Little Raven]

LR, while I find your logic to be flawless, and I mostly agree with you, arent we both Westerners? Westerners only seem to project victory and defeat into the immediate future.

We are, of course both Westerners. And, as such, we do place different values on different things than some of our Middle Eastern cousins. But while Iranian values are not identical to ours, they're not stupid. And a war with US makes no more sense for Iran in 'the long view' than it does in the short one.

In the long view, America has no special interest in the Middle East. I know we like to play up our little love affair with Israel, but the hard truth is that the paramount American interest in the Middle East is oil, and the stability of the oil market. In the long term, that ends, and America is gone, leaving a void of power waiting to be filled, by, say, a nuclear Iran. The loss of petrodollars will hurt the Iranian economy badly, of course, but it will fair better than some of its neighbors, and assuming it doesn’t get wrecked in the short term, it will have an opportunity to reassert itself.

Now, in the middle view, the US interest in the Middle East is going to increase dramatically, as oil grows scarce but is still vital for the world economy. But even in this instance, Iran sacrificing itself to weaken the US makes no sense, because even if the US is successfully removed from the picture, China and India will quickly fill the void. True, neither of those are as strong as the US, but that won’t do Iran any good if it’s suffered the Iraq treatment.

Iran has an opportunity in the coming years to regain much of its previous status...to restore Persia to what they see as it’s rightful place as a regional superpower. To do that, it needs nukes, and it WILL go to any lengths in order to get them. But it also needs to avoid a true war with US. Which is amazingly convenient for us, since we desperately need to avoid a war with them. And the rational people on both sides know this. Now it’s true, there are those on both sides who are NOT rational, and who want war for a variety of reasons. But for now, I’m betting on the sane…over there and over here.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We are, of course both Westerners. And, as such, we do place different values on different things than some of our Middle Eastern cousins. But while Iranian values are not identical to ours, they're not stupid. And a war with US makes no more sense for Iran in 'the long view' than it does in the short one.

In the long view, America has no special interest in the Middle East. I know we like to play up our little love affair with Israel, but the hard truth is that the paramount American interest in the Middle East is oil, and the stability of the oil market. In the long term, that ends, and America is gone, leaving a void of power waiting to be filled, by, say, a nuclear Iran. The loss of petrodollars will hurt the Iranian economy badly, of course, but it will fair better than some of its neighbors, and assuming it doesn’t get wrecked in the short term, it will have an opportunity to reassert itself.

Now, in the middle view, the US interest in the Middle East is going to increase dramatically, as oil grows scarce but is still vital for the world economy. But even in this instance, Iran sacrificing itself to weaken the US makes no sense, because even if the US is successfully removed from the picture, China and India will quickly fill the void. True, neither of those are as strong as the US, but that won’t do Iran any good if it’s suffered the Iraq treatment.

Iran has an opportunity in the coming years to regain much of its previous status...to restore Persia to what they see as it’s rightful place as a regional superpower. To do that, it needs nukes, and it WILL go to any lengths in order to get them. But it also needs to avoid a true war with US. Which is amazingly convenient for us, since we desperately need to avoid a war with them. And the rational people on both sides know this. Now it’s true, there are those on both sides who are NOT rational, and who want war for a variety of reasons. But for now, I’m betting on the sane…over there and over here.

LR, all I can say is, I hope youre right and that Im wrong. The sane people rarely call the shots though...

Again, I agree with all of your reasoning, and I find no fault with it, however, our track record, going back at least 100 years, seems to indicate that none of us Westerners are very good at figuring out what forms and motivates the Muslim Middle Eastern mind. So my assumption here is that yet again, we're going to come to the absolute wrong conclusions, and make the wrong decisions.

 

[Knowltok]

edit: btw, we all seem to think that we can restrict the conflict with Iran to strictly bombing and naval maneuvers. The Iranians arent stupid. The smartest thing for them to do in response to an attack from us would be to invade Iraq.

I don't think that would work so well. How far are they going to be able to get? An advancing army without air cover? Their only chance would be a general uprising of Iraqis in support, and I don't see that as too likely. Sure, they might make some progress, but I think within days we'd massacre them. Highway of Death and all that.

 

[mdwh]

To put another spin on it, what if they were Iranians who'd wondered into US territory?

The Guardian has two articles putting it better (and more humorously, in the second case) that I could:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329762707-111322,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2046991,00.html

 

[SG-17]

if they tried there would be a few iranian boats on the bottom right now and tehran a pile of rubble, why else does bush want a troop surge? so her can attack iran with a large number of soldiers at one time. we have 'em flanked.

 

[Kyriakos]

If the Us soldiers were also illegally inside Iranian waters, i do not see why Iran shouldnt arrest them as well.
Its not like they would have to face something worse than their current deaths in Iraq.

 

[IglooDame]

Just as US sailors (and marines) are passingly familiar with the '79 hostage crisis, I'd bet that Iranian naval commanders recall Operation Praying Mantis. The USN has smacked around the Iranian Navy pretty hard in the past in response to provocations smaller than taking sailors prisoner - a mine hit on the Samuel B Roberts led to this experience for an Iranian frigate (among other details):

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

if they tried there would be a few iranian boats on the bottom right now and tehran a pile of rubble, why else does bush want a troop surge? so her can attack iran with a large number of soldiers at one time. we have 'em flanked.

That must be some goooood kool-aid you're drinkin there.


The 20k that Bush asked for is to lock down ONE city. Twenty Thousand boots is such an incredibly small number in terms of army sizes, I don't see how you could possibly think of this as a "troop buildup" for a move on Iran. To think so shows great ignorance on your part.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

So the Brits are not a strong enough ally to the U.S. for the U.S. to use its carrier groups on their behalf?

I believe we would only use the Battle Groups if the sailors were executed or use the threat of force if the Iranians were threatening execution.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The 20k that Bush asked for is to lock down ONE city. Twenty Thousand boots is such an incredibly small number in terms of army sizes, I don't see how you could possibly think of this as a "troop buildup" for a move on Iran. To think so shows great ignorance on your part.

Uh, wouldn't it be 40,000 boots? As Americans also have two feet.

Remember, the Greeks generally had very small numbers compared to the Persians early on (Thermopylae, Marathon, Salamis, etc) and in all they cases they at least held their own if not won.

Equipment, training, and air support do account for a lot.

 

[JollyRoger]

Uh, wouldn't it be 40,000 boots? As Americans also have two feet.

Not necessarily with Bushco.

 

[REDY]

No, they would not have dared. I think that British count same as American for them. Question should be if captured were for example Czech soldiers