If the USA can't gain control of Baghdad....then how can we beat Iran?

Question

It sounds mean, but it is a question someone needs to ask.

I'm a USAF vet, and support our troops. BUT THIS QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ASKED!

Answer 1

A good question- and the answer is that we can't. Our forces have a job to finish in Iraq and we cannot be starting major conflicts without securing Iraq. Also, Iran's main military force is the "Revolutionary Guard" which is largely made up of trained civilians and they claim it is a couple million strong. Any ground war in Iran would very quickly turn into a guerrilla war many times worse than Iraq. If we were to even attempt to win a war like that, we would need major military strategy overhaul, and we would need to know a lot more about counter insurgency. The best way to deal with Iran is to first of all secure Iraq, so they cannot use the chaos there against us. Then use economic means to try to force the Iranians choose between a functioning economy or their mullah leaders. If the Iranian regime is unaffected after this, air strikes against key Iranian oil infrastructure could possibly be used as a means to force the Iranian government over the brink of collapse. Strikes against their nuclear facilities should be on the table as well, but only in an emergency. For god's sake, keep the troops out! That is exactly the kind of war they want us to try to fight because it is exactly the kind of war they can beat us in.

Answer 2

Wow, I think that is kind of an unpatriotic question. But I guess if "someone needs to ask."

I consider it this way. 1. We destroyed the Iraqi army in a month. Iran and Iraq battled it out for a long time back in the 80's with Saddam finally using chemical weapons on them. I highly doubt we would have any problems with Iran.

2. The type of battle we are in now, isn't the same as it would be with Iran. The Iranians would be identifiable due to their tanks, uniforms, gear ect. The people we are fighting now are cowards who hide in a building, blow up an ied and call it a day.

My thoughts are, if you take the media out of the country, let the Generals handle this war and not the politicians, the military can do what we are truly capable of and win this war. We would be home quicker then anyone would believe.

Answer 3

Yeah, I know - I don't see any other solution except to begin erasing the parts of the country's infrastructure that the mullahs care most about. We'd do this with stand-off weapons and, every few days, ask how they're doin' and are they ready yet to have a REAL conversation? They'd never give in so we'd have to hope that the Iranian people would rise up and slaughter 'em en masse. If it all sounds wacko just remember that history is replete with much stranger tales of success.

That country is teetering as it is what with over 50% of the population being under the age of 15, the economy being in a constant state of crisis (geez, they ration gasoline there!), and the lack of meaningful political opposition due to the constant jailings of critics of the religious regime. I think, given enough time, that they're ready to implode on their own; I also think we don't have the time to wait.

Answer 4

You're a vet, so you know the answer. We need to send enough troops to get the job done in Baghdad. Regarding Iran, we don't need to beat the whole country, just destroy their nuclear facilities and leave. You tell me, can we do that from the air?

Answer 5

Iraq is in a civil war there is nothing we can do, its up to the Iraqi govt. to fix which they won't since they want to see the Sunni's eliminated. Iran would be a totally different story. They are backed and armed by both China and Russia. We wouldn't stand a chance at actually winning. I quite honestly think that if we did try to invade Iran it would start World War 3. But, I think Israel will start that war w/o are help.

Answer 6

We don't need to gain control of Iran & I don't think we will introduce ground troops. We will destroy their nuke & missile sites from the air.
There is a big difference between gaining control of a civilian populace & defeating an army. Our forces destroyed the Iraqi Army very quickly.

Answer 7

No, basically conflict. as a replace, why no longer seem to our own supplies: Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists estimate that between the two, there is adequate usable oil for the U.S. to be self-reliant for variety of a hundred and fifty years. the topic is that tree-huggers are afraid that some underground pipes are going to force the Caribu into extinction and oil companies do no longer prefer to spend the money to construct oil rigs interior the sea while we are starting to be it so less expensive (confident we nevertheless have less expensive oil while in comparison with something of the international) from South u . s . a . and Canada.

Answer 8

You are quite correct. Even if we went into Iran and defeated their army we would still have the insurgents to fight in order to pacify Iran completely. Who needs this s**t? We should pull out of Iraq and allow the Sunnis and Shities (excuse me, Shiites) fight it out to the last man in Iraq and Iran.

Answer 9

The key word in your question is "if". Time will tell. In about six months, if the USA is still struggling, I would say we would withdraw. Some say "redeploy". Others say "cut & run". No matter how you say it, it will be a defeat. Of course, it is just one battle in the war on terrorism, but the war will be much more difficult to win.

Answer 10

The USA can gain control of Baghdad. We are restrained from doing it. Instead of going into Iraq as invaders, we went in as liberators. Now, we don't know what we are.