previous post next post  

Wars, and Rumors of War.

By The Armorer on April 12, 2006 | | Comments (17)

Iranian Frogfoot

Well, I guess it's time to weigh in a little bit. (Irony joke for those who are following SWWBO's posts).

Bill posted CAPT H's link to a fascinating little sci-fi think piece in his post below - scooping Fuzzybear Lioness, too (hee!).

Over at Confederate Yankee, there's a piece up about war with Iran, called Killing Allah.

An excerpt:

When Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that the Administration is planning contingencies for possible military strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, and that even our own nuclear options were being considered as a possible response in some scenarios, my initial response was one of "isn’t it their job to consider all options?" I did not however, actually think using nuclear weapons was a workable solution, anymore than did the generals in Hersh’s anonymously-sourced article who threatened to resign if the nuclear option wasn’t removed from the table.

Like the President, I do not desire military conflict—or in light of Iranian intrusion into Iraq, more military conflict—with Iran, and would much prefer a diplomatic settlement where no more lives need be lost. I agree with the apparent assessment of Steyn and others that the Iranian mullahcracy will not stop until they are stopped, and that stoppage, like so many things in the Islamic world, will only occur at the point of the sword.

All I had to add to the discussion was this:

Sy Hersh has done something else, probably unintentionally, but possibly not.

Because of his open stating of "The US is considering nukes." he's guaranteed we will.

Stay with me.

It doesn't matter in this context if we do or don't.

Because if we hit *any* underground facility that has radioactive material in it - it will be trotted out as proof that *we* used a nuke.

Never mind if it's the right isotopes or amount of radiation for a nuke - the geiger counters will click and the radiacmeters register... and those who are prone to believe we did it will believe we did it - and it will get reported that way.

You heard it here first. Hey, I was the first guy to predict that someone in San Francisco would quickly hatch a plan to make the USS Iowa a Gay Icon.

If this works out (I hope not, frankly) I'll have scored like a broken clock. Right twice.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2006 03:42 PM

I got quibbled with, in a minor way:

Posted by: Fish at April 11, 2006 11:05 PM John of Argghhh,

The usual suspects claim our use of specially de-enriched depleted uranium constituted the use of a nuclear weapon on our part, as well as claiming WP as a chemical weapon instead of an incidnary. In short, ..-. 'em. If they're going to have the same reaction no matter what we do, we shouldn't change our plans on account of their kvetching.

Posted by: Cybrludite at April 12, 2006 06:29 AM


Master Luddite - Just for the record - I didn't suggest we should take the option off the table. I just pointed out we would get blamed, regardless of what we did.

I suppose I could have added, "So we might as well" except that I, a former nuke weapons person myself, just hate the damn things six ways to Sunday.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 12, 2006 07:39 AM

Then comes this, from John Hindraker at Powerline:

Is Andrew Paranoid?

We wrote below about Iran's "Forces of Mohammad" military exercises, in which the Iranian military has unveiled a series of new weapons. Filmmaker Andrew Marcus emails:

As I follow the coverage of the Iranian military maneuvers, I can't help but reflect upon what Michael Ledeen wrote in NRO on February 17.
Despite this disquieting news, the overall tone of the conversation was upbeat, because the Iranians believe they see many positive developments, above all, the declaration that "it has been promised that by 8 April, we will be in a position to show the entire world that 'we are members of the club.'" This presumably refers to nuclear weapons. Against this cheery background, the assessment of the Iranian leaders continued.... http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200602170951.asp
Are we on the precipice of a horrifying new reality to be unveiled as early as this weekend? I can’t find a schedule for the "Forces of Mohammad" military exercise but if it ends on the 8th......

Paranoid in Chicago,
Andrew Marcus


I think it's reasonable to be paranoid where Iran is concerned. It's also worth noting that no one really knows how close the Mullahs are to detonating a nuclear bomb. But how can this be? It's impossible to be wrong about a totalitarian state's WMD capabilities without "lying," isn't it? Is it the liberals' position that we should act on the most optimistic assumptions about Iran's capabilities and intentions?

Silly question. They don't have a position, of course.

The last line is simply gorgeous.

Forgive me, John, for lifting the whole thing, because I *will* send them to this post on "How Dangerous is Iran?" as penance (and because it sets up the rest of this post, too...)

I have *lots* of opinions about going to war with Iran. Most of them informed by what I currently do for a living, so, in keeping with The Armorer's Rulez of Blogging, I'm keeping to myself. Instead, I'm going to offer up some stuff that's probably been all over somewhere else, but I've been so busy I haven't seen it there. I have an album of pictures of the Iranian exercise people have been talking about.

Iranian Soldier

This is a huge exercise, and staged for the benefit of the world press. Looking through the pics with a military eye I see several things. They pulled off a very complex event, which speaks well of their ability to do set-piece planning. Wars are won, of course, by the results of your seat-of-the-pants planning.

This is not the Iraqi Army of Saddam. At least the forces caught in the pictures have good, basic, soldierly discipline, evidenced in the dress, demeanor, and condition of their equipment.

I would *not* want to be their logisticians, given the polyglot of equipment they have - but the fact they are keeping their US-supplied stuff flying is testimony to their scrounging and reverse-engineering abilities - but suggests they'll have problems with their logistical endurance.

If we go to war with them, and they recall us relics like Bill, Dusty and I, we're going to be having some deja vu and *blink blink* moments.

Bill is going to feel like he's killing old friends.

I'm going to feel like it's Back To The Future III.

Dusty will feel right at home.

CDR Salamander will be testing himself against swarming Boghammers....

I do see the occasional sign of weakness however. But, this is intended for show, more than training, so the clumping and lack of camouflage on poorly built and sited positions probably shouldn't be relied on...

Iranian Exercise Album here.

I don't want to take these guys on solo. Not because we can't beat them - we can. But because it will hurt, and hurt a lot, to fight these guys Rumsfeld's Way. If we can't avoid the fight (for all the right reasons) then I'd prefer to steam-roller 'em, thank you, in a classic attrition fight, just to reduce the numbers of available fedayeen types we'd inevitably have to deal with in the aftermath. Especially when you own the air, mass has a quality all it's own...

Iranian Patrol Boat


Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

17 Comments

By FbL on April 12, 2006 8:34 AM
Well. That was a depressing way to start my day!
 
By FbL on April 12, 2006 8:41 AM
Just had a thought... Many armchair generals are saying that this could be dealt with simply from the air--precise bombing on (nuclear) facilities a la Bosnia. But if the U.S. bombs Iran, then Iran heads straight for U.S. forces in Iraq, yes? So then it's reasonable to assue there is no possibility of this just being a "simple" air action, I'm thinking... Ugh. More morning ugliness.
 
By kat-missouri on April 12, 2006 9:01 AM
Well, upon looking at a map of the Iran and Iraq area, I don't think that the premise that the Iranians "head right for our troops in Iraq" is all that its cracked up to be. While there is a certain flat area near the border, the thing that makes it difficult for us to invade, also makes it difficult for them to simply come across, mainly the mountain range. Unless they have significant forces already deployed in fighting positions along that border (I mean more than simple border patrol or stepped up presence due to continued encroachment of smugglers and militants), it wouldn't be that easy to simply pick up and start moving. We would have some warning, though I imagine this is why we are maintaining a large naval air combat contingent in the area regardless of limited CAS for Iraq and Afghanistan since this force could be guaranteed to be the fore runner against Iranian air force and ground force, particularly if they try to bring up re-enforcements. I think while folks are getting flustered at the Iranian abilities, we should recognize their limitations. Not to underestimate them, but to understand why they might find popping off a rocket at us is a bad idea. That being said, I find John's "Rumsfeld's War" funny considering all the discussions about total war v. war of liberation v. Powell/Clausewitz doctrine. I had a smile on my face. The only think I keep telling myself is that in wars of liberation, you don't go in and smash the population to bits. In the war against Iran, it would not be war of liberation, but defense or response to their actions. In which case, as much as I may feel for the population in their oppression, there are plenty who still believe in and serve the mullahcracy. Thus, we don't liberate, we smash it to pieces to insure victory and limit our own casualties. I don't think its an "air war" solution. I think every war is different with different solutions based on the political aims, geographics and logistics. No one supported ground troops because they didn't want to have to acknowledge Russia's presence in the Slavik lands as "advisors". If they did, then the whole war would be different. Thus, air power provided cover and anonymity without our forces meeting with forces we would rather not after the "End of History". Iran, very probable they would have Russian advisors, maybe even Chinese. Just remember that Fukyama doesn't know what he's talking about in the "End of History" its the same players, a few of them have just changed their names. Witht the terrain and political aim of the war to NOT be liberation (hope to G-d no idiot starts talking like that during this war), we WOULD and could smash it vigorously with plains and tomahawks. We would cut off the ports and probably warn Russia that supplying Iran from the north might result in accidental identification of their forces as the "foe". So, the air campaign would be a big part and I think we would go into modern siege warfare. I only question whether we would destroy energy infrastructure. In some ways, I see that we want it to stay on line and jumpstart global market ASAP, but, in the scheme of modern siege war, oil and natural gas facilities as well as water dams, etc are equal to the castle sistern and you would destroy that if possible. Though, I suppose that is long term siege warfare as opposed to short term pray for a decapitation strike.
 
By kat-missouri on April 12, 2006 9:06 AM
I realize I was answering FbL "no one supported ground troops in BOSNIA et al" Just in case that wasn't clear.
 
By ry on April 12, 2006 10:29 AM
Again, go to this months Proceedings. They've got a nice little diddy about the geography of Iran. This sword cuts both ways. Iran is hard to attack by land because it's essentially a bowl(mountains forming a ring, with a desert in the cavity). Hopefully the Iranians aren't stupid. They couldn't gain ground against Iraqi forces in the Iran-Iraq war in that flat plain west of the mountains. What makes them think they could do much better against US forces while having to traverse such inhospitable/difficult terrain? BUT, what most people are talking about with Iran 'hitting US personel in Iraq' is with ballistic missiles. They have 'em. The Shahab series(at least 3 iterations of it). Could be nasty. I just hope they worked all the kinks out of the latest version of the Patriot system.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on April 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Many armchair generals are saying that this could be dealt with simply from the air--precise bombing on (nuclear) facilities a la Bosnia. That's why they'll never command anything bigger than a TV remote: the only reason Serbia retreated a. from Bosnia was the introduction of US ground forces. The prospect of going nose to nose with somebody possessing superior firepower was a bit unnerving for Milošević; b. from Kosovo was because it had finished what it started out to do--chase roughly 850,000 ethnic Albanians out of the province. Despite claims of almost a thousand armored vehicles and artillery pieces destroyed by NATO air, actual Serb ground losses were--ready?--fourteen. Although Serbs claimed they only lost thirteen--somebody may have thought the PRC Embassy counted as an AFV...
 
By kat-missouri on April 12, 2006 2:06 PM
And now we know what real pre-emptive war is about, Ry. Israel taking out the Egyptian air foce because they already knew what was happening. As my grandpa once told me, if you can talk your way out of fight, talk. If it looks like your going to fight anyway, throw the first punch because there is no glory in laying on the ground getting the dog kicked out of you which is what happens to most people who wait for the other guy to hit first.
 
By KCSteve on April 12, 2006 3:07 PM
Iran should remember that Iraq collapsed so quickly we never got to test lots of fun new toys like the MOAB...
 
By UtahMan on April 12, 2006 5:27 PM
This is probably like going out on the target range wearing a bullseye T-shirt, but here goes... John - when you mean "The Rumsfeld Way," I'm assuming you mean what we did in Iraq, destroying the enemy's military with minimum civilian casulaties, then trying to pick up the pieces after? I'm realizing this is sounding pretty dense, but what else could we do? How else could we fight that the American people would accept? Even after 9/11, I don't think the American people (or the press, at least) will accept large numbers of enemy civilian casualties. All we would see in the media would be comparisons to My Lai and Hiroshima, and recriminations. And it wouldn't be stood for. And our adversaries would take full advantage of that, showing eager press crews the bombed out milk factories and orphanages, conveniently signed as such in English. Our enemies understand us better than we understand ourselves... How do we go about thwarting this militarily without inviting disaster or political defeat even as we win on the battlefield? And how much help, realistically, could we expect? Outside the ABca forces, who has the reach and the will? (Well, the Indians might. But with Pakistan to worry about, they would probably sit on the sidelines.) And assuming we could get the ABca forces onside, we'd still be the main effort. Now I'm not saying that carpet-bombing the cities is a good idea - and I know you well enough to know that's not what you're thinking, either. So, talking strategically - leaving out your work and painting in as broad strokes as possible - how would you go about it? (I guess I'm just saying, "I'm confused.")
 
By UtahMan on April 12, 2006 5:43 PM
Boy, that post of mine proved to be overly long. Sorry about that. I guess the question boils down to this: Do we wait instead, for the next crisis, when Iran is nuclear armed? Compared to these guys, the USSR was rational. While I think Iran is a bit more stable than Iraq - it's not a perfect dictatorship, but more of an autocracy, so there's more than one guy with something to lose - Ahmanemejad (don't call me on spelling) scares me more than Bush scares the night watch over on Democratic Underground.
 
By Papa Ray on April 12, 2006 7:21 PM
If I may bring up something no one talked about directly. Iran already has thousands of "agents" in Iraq. Those along with the Iraqis that are working with them would be a force that could cause our troops and the IA all kinds of grief in Iraq. The border with Iran is open everyday to smugglers as the other borders are also. A flood of more idiots that want to die for the virgins would surely take place when the bombing started. The PA,Pakistan and other countries has them lined up and only needs to give them their murder vests and belts and send them on their way. So, will Rummy or Chaney or Bush say to Iraq- Ok guys while we bomb Iran and fight them in your cities and countryside and at the borders, your civilian population is going to be caught up in our fight and we sure would appriciate it if you could talk your Army and Police into being on our side, and try to control all these special interest militias. When I was a boy, we traveled light and fast, no road trips, no IEDS. We flew like birds, landed like pelicans and then had to fight like devils until re-supply and reinforcements arrived. Of course we had air cover that saved our bacon many times. Don't they do that anymore? Papa Ray West Texas USA
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 12, 2006 8:17 PM
UM- The Rumsfeld Way - go in with just enough to win the fight in a technical sense, but with a wholly inadequate plan for the aftermath. Unless the plan for the aftermath is to pull pitch and leave, i.e., a Smash and Grab. I am *not* suggesting that we adopt Bomber Harris' or Curtis LeMay's (or go farther back, Douhet) approach to the problem. That make you feel better? The point is - enough troops to win the fight may well not be enough troops to give you a leg up on winning the peace. The original planning, before Rumsfeld inserted his views, was much more robust, and would have had a far greater density of troops on the ground to impose and maintain social order. Unlike Operation Cobra II. Which was too much like Cobra, a pure military plan to advance a campaign, than a well thought-out, fully integrated plan for a *war*. At least that's my read on it so far. Better?
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 12, 2006 8:18 PM
Papa Ray - welcome back, long time, no post!
 
By ry on April 13, 2006 2:14 PM
Kat--and I agree with your grandpa. But, we aren't at that point where talking is futile. And an air raid, imho, would basically just force/allow the Iranians to build better, more modern, and better defended nuclear facilities; and with a speeded up time table to boot. I don't like that. Not at all. Right now it'll buy us a few tens of months. Wait 6 years and it'll buy us the same amount of time. I don't want to wait until the seismic sensors indicate that Iran's tested a warhead that can be mated to the Shahab 3----which could possibely reach Italy, but definitely Greece--- but moving in Bush's remaining term doesn't buy us a whole lot. I also agree with Hitchens. As long as it's a Mullah-ocracy over there the Iranians will have a nuc weaps program. That means we have to take down the entire country and deal with the nastiness that that entails. We have to have the forces to do the job. Right now we don't. As John said, the best vector for our heavily mechanized forces is the NW of Iran. That's not going to happen as Russian would go apoplectic with NATO/US forces in their 'sphere of influence'---which they already are over the possibility of US air bases in Central Asia(i.e. I don't think it's much of a strech I'm making here). That leaves amphib or by land(Iraq or Afghanistan---and both are crappy for armored spearheads because of the mountains and the desert they'd have to cross(and I'm relying on p.53 of this months Proceedings here. 'Tanks and other armored vehicles that tend to break down on long trips accordingly would avoid wear and tear only if heavy equipment transporters carried them until contact with enemy forces seemed immenent. Salt pans and shifting sand would make cross country travel wretched for wheels as well as tracks in region iv(the interior bowl desert as I've called it afore), which contains many of IRan's most important nuclear installations'). Page 51 of the same issue and articel describe the region as even more inhospitable to heavily mechanzed forces. That tells me it's a light infantry fight. Helo-transport and supply(with the Iranians just dripping with Russian and French(off the black market) manpads---Chief, you retired just in time! Lots moved by Humvee or 2 ton truck. I haven't studied the US OB lately, but I think we only have three Army divisions that really work this way: 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airmobile. Don't know how large our Ranger contingent is. Don't know what the Marines have in this mode either. That's pretty slim pickins for a take down of an enemy like Iran. We don't have the proper tool and we get next to no benefit from doing it sooner rather than later. Let's wait 'til the benefit is high, or let's build the proper tool. John, have you read Barnett on Rummy? Short version: Rummy is the best Secretary of War we've ever had-----we just need a second half team to handle the aftermath and win the peace. The more I think about it the more I like Barnett's theory of having a Leviathan force(which grabs bastiches by the nads and crushes them) and a SysAdministrator force(which is geared primarily toward rebuilding and civil affairs---but doesn't mean that the SysAdmin won't have trigger pullers.). Leviathan is mechanized and brimming with firepower. SysAdmin is manpower intensive, made up of older and more mature soldiers(MSgt. K comes to mind) and actually a larger force overall too. The psychology makes sense to me on this too. Yesterday you had this one guy running around and shooting up your town. Now he's supposed to be your buddy? Bring in a new bunch of faces, in different uniforms and vehicles, and with a marked different set of skills/mind set. This is doable, but expensive(in money, equipment, and careers as some won't be able to handle the change). I don't know if Rummy's way is 'bad', but I think you're onto something when you say that the total package wasn't as developed as the invasion was.
 
By UtahMan on April 13, 2006 2:49 PM
Thanks John - much better. And I'm now following the discussion a little more coherently. By the way - I didn't mean to cast aspersions - like I said, I know you better than that. Now to start another kerfluffle - do we have the forces to effectively occupy? Or are we limited to a smash-and-grab? Ry - the sysadmin force strikes me as a good idea, especially since it could be built from National Guard or Reserve units. Those same units - military police esp. - would have a dual utility at home in emrgency roles. And in theory, our standing army would be a hard-edged cadre of warfighters and combat specialists - with the skills most desperately needed when the shots are first exchanged. Of course, that opinion may be heavily influenced by the cough medicine I'm swilling. I hate spring colds.
 
By ry on April 13, 2006 6:38 PM
"Those same units - military police esp. - would have a dual utility at home in emrgency roles." It's exactly that day-to-day experience in dealing with the locals that makes me really like Barnett's idea. Lots of cops and firemen who understand intrinsically that they have to work with the community to get the job done. They're less rotweiller and more Austrailian sheepdog. But, it'll be majorly expensive to have this rather redundant force(or that's how I see the Kucinich types playing it) as the SysAdmin. I just think it's a good idea. ANd it could allow some of the Denizens to keep a finger in the pie, why waste all that hard earned experience? "And in theory, our standing army would be a hard-edged cadre of warfighters and combat specialists - with the skills most desperately needed when the shots are first exchanged." That's exactly what Barnett wants. Total bifurcation with Leviathan being utterly dedicated to fighting and the civil affairs type stuff given over to SysAdmin. Unfortunately, he puts the Marine Corps in the SysAdmin force. The 'Hearts and Minds' doctrine seems to have caught on there more so he thinks the Marines are perfect as the 'muscle' of the SysAdmin force. That can't make some of the readers around here happy. 'Always the bridesmaid and never the bride.' "Now to start another kerfluffle - do we have the forces to effectively occupy? Or are we limited to a smash-and-grab?" NOw, granted, I'm an amateur, but I say all we have ready right now is smash, maybe smash and grab. But I don't think either smash(heavy bombing raid) or smash and grab(ground forces to hit nuc facilities) is going to stop the threat. Not for a long enough period of time to make the expenditure worth it.
 
By MCart on April 14, 2006 2:32 AM
I don't buy the stated claims of either that tin boats 'stealth invisibility' or the speed of that rocket powered torp. 300fps? I'd like to freakin see it. You hit water at those speeds and you don't displace water. It actually begins to behave like a solid, and shatters. I would really like to see it. And showing us in this video would be the biggest blunder ever, if it existed. If something is shown to be possible, false modesty aside, the US has the resources to figure it out probably next week. I expect that just on the odd chance, there are significant resources already devoted to studying it, JUST IN CASE. I hate to be a naysayer, when real lives could be on the line, but that picket boat isn't avoiding ANYTHING on radar. No way. No sale. You could probably 'see' the edges of it's ginormous foamy wake with the technology of the LAST decade. While the rocket maybe oh maybe moves faster than it can be heard with sonar, that tub certainly cannot. In the EXTREMELY outside possibility you can't see it on radar, well gosh, we can see you with FLIR just FINE. Just the blanket claim it's 'invisible to radar' scores negative points for me. NOTHING is 'invisible' to all bands, all power levels. At some point, you can sterilize human testes with it, at range, without ever firing a shot. You can see birds with it. Meat, bone and feathers, no metal reflectivity at all. There are ways to absorb and re-direct it, and that boat exhibits none of those methods. Big talk though. Impressive blather. Not buying. But nice try. I vote: Clearly empty propaganda mongering. 'Baghdad Bob' would be proud. Hopefully, I am not wrong.