If the US government did invade Iran, would it leave the US military overstretched with their current commitments in Iraq and Afganistan as well as protecting world embassies and homeland security?
2006-06-07 07:07:54 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The US military is already overstretched. If we should see a conflict on the Korean Peninsula or if a conflict should break out between Taiwan and China… or if forced to fight Iran, the US does not have the ready forces to meet the need without leaving the homeland defenseless.
We need the draft.
2006-06-07 07:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by sincityq 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we invaded Iran, which is 3 times the size of Iraq, I can't imagine the number of troops that will be killed. We don't have enough troops for Iraq to even let many of the military out that should have been discharged. That sounds like a de Facto draft to me!
I think Bush would Nuke them and start a very, vary big war with NO allies!!
2006-06-07 07:14:03 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US will never tell the public what its strength is but if you think it is weak then that is good the other side will think so also.but to help you sleep tonight in 1991 Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world with latest solve it technology and it took 100 hours to fight the mother of all battles these little vermin that sneak around and murder civilians are a nuisance not and army
2006-06-07 07:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The left wing media created this idea that we are overstretched. Our military leaders know what they are doing. If we needed to attack Iran it will probably be with air power mostly and not so much an invasion.
2006-06-07 07:12:43 · answer #4 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are extra than a number of Troops, in spite of the undeniable fact that we are no longer taking the combat to the enemy. we are sitting back and watching the enemy and doing constrained "policing" strikes because of the fact our politicians are afraid that if we "unleashed" our forces we could kill many civilians and our very own troops. SO, we are in a purely shielding posture in Iraq and are in a "keeping" development attempting to get the Iraqi's to take responsiblity for themselves. If our leaders had the political will to "pacify" Iraq, it would desire to be carried out, yet that grew to become into in no way our purpose, our purpose grew to become into to alter Saddam with a extra "western-friendly" government...to that end a good distance the outcomes have been mixed.
2016-09-28 04:23:57 · answer #5 · answered by cosco 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as we have the best and most accurate nukes in the world..we can downsize to 1 army guy...
2006-06-07 07:16:24 · answer #6 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋