18 ms·
The US won't invade Iran. They might bomb it, but never invade. Too many people, terrain too difficult. 2.5 times more people than Iraq, and 10 times more rugge
by afterburner 15y ago
The US won't invade Iran. They might bomb it, but never invade. Too many people, terrain too difficult. 2.5 times more people than Iraq, and 10 times more rugged terrain. Also, they've never been there before, so operationally it's a far more daunting prospect even without considering the already huge challenges.
People might think "oh it could just turn into another Iraq." But, really, it can't. Not that pushing back isn't a bad idea. But, really, it can't. If anything happens, it'll be all bombs.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoPeople said the same thing about Afghanistan, and Iraq too. Just because something is difficult doesn't rule out it happening at some future date. It's even more challenging to try to deal with North Korea militarily, but it would be silly to rule out the possibility entirely. The future of Iran, and of Pakistan too, is crucially important to the future security or insecurity of the entire world. Who can say what future developments may bring?
- afterburner 15y agoAbout Afghanistan: the CIA had been involved in Afghanistan for decades. They had volumes of information, and allies. Russian involvement made a lot of information available (spies) and set the country up for interventionist scenarios. With Iraq, the entire military had been there 10 years before. Those are not the case in Iran. It's much more of an unknown. And frankly, Afghanistan really is easier to invade, so I'm not sure invading was such a shock as you claim, especially coming a mere 20 years after the Russian invasion. It's a country divided into self-interested warlord factions. Achieving any kind of lasting effect, that's another thing entirely... but sitting around having pot-shots taken at you, no problem. Especially if you can back it up with cash. Sure, who knows what can happen. But it would practically have to be a new world order, slanted towards that possibility. So that's not a good reason for keeping a lid on any talk of Iran being unjust or unfair, just out of fear that such talk now would somehow contribute some fraction of a fraction towards intervention in some unknown, completely removed event in the distant future.
- shingen 15y agoI agree. An invasion of Iran would be a real war, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Korean war. It would very likely involve a draft, and require at least 500,000 troops on the ground. We'd lose 20,000 soldiers in the first year of combat (obviously all the fighting after the first wave of battles would be guerrilla style). Iran is absolutely nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, in any way shape or form. It's not that we can't 'win' in an invasion style conflict with Iran - we can certainly flatten the entire country - but the cost would be far beyond anything the American public could stomach. The things we'd have to do to Iran in order to get them to capitulate would be beyond horrendous. I don't believe we can actually afford the cost that would be involved. Unless Ben Bernanke is willing to monetize $3 trillion to fund it over the next few years. Maybe they're willing to do that and are that stupid, I'd just like to think not. Bombs, no-fly zones, naval skirmishes - that's all we're going to see. Unless our leaders are really really really stupid.