5 ms·

The US would not win a ground war in Iran. Before every US war, people tend to think the US military and their $800 billion/year budget are unbeatable. But look

by mmooss 7mo ago

The US would not win a ground war in Iran. Before every US war, people tend to think the US military and their $800 billion/year budget are unbeatable. But look at outcomes of significant US ground wars since WWII - only one clear victory: * Korea: Stalemate, which is still a problem now 70 years later * Vietnam: Loss * Gulf War: Victory * Afganistan: Loss, after 20 years of fighting * Iraq: Mixed results after 8 years: Saddam Hussein threat eliminated, Iran and ISIS made significant gains Iran is larger and has more people and resources than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Terrain in Iran is a game world-builder's fantasy of defensibility: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F277020426%2Ffigure%2Ffig1%2FAS%3A294521754669056%401447230866774%2FTopographic-map-of-Iran-shows-various-physiographic-regions-source-wwwworldofmapsnet.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4863cfcceed8ebfe3d263afe3c511a6089c564e713be3170515cf0b560ce39fc https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... Iran is far more capable militarily than Iraq and Afghanistan and, particulary, their military may be world's the leading experts on assymetric warfare; they train everyone else - Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. Their proxies held off the US military and allies in Iraq, a neighboring country, where Iran had far less motivation than to defend their own homes from a US invasion. The US could win given unlimited political will and time, but it would be very costly and anyway, the US couldn't sustain that will for much easier situations in the prior two wars. Nobody is crazy enough to launch a ground invasion of Iran, I hope.

metalliqaz 7mo ago
Depends on how bad the leaks from the E-files are
pfannkuchen 7mo ago
But if the goal was actually to destabilize those places then maybe it worked as intended?
- actionfromafar 7mo ago
  If think assume too much competence. I'm sure there are various plans (ok maybe not with this "administration", their "plans" seems to be fast-forward grift) but I have very little confidence in them going in any particular direction.
- mmooss 7mo ago
  I can't think of any examples of that and don't see that in the wars listed above. Destabilized countries are bad news for entire regions and can become havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists, criminals, etc. And those things spread across borders. The idea that the Iranians will act on his wishes is a fantasy of someone who wants to win without paying the costs, as a freebie.
  - pfannkuchen 7mo ago
    Destabilized nations are good if you are a nearby nation wanting to expand and you expect those other nations to oppose you.
    - mmooss 7mo ago
      The US isn't a nearby nation and doesn't want to expand by seizing countries anywhere, especially in the Mideast. None of Iran's neighbors - e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan - want to or have any capacity to invade Iran. A destabilized Iran is a nightmare for them.
- pseudohadamard 7mo ago
  The current lot in Iran came to power through revolution and they've made very sure that the same thing can't happen to them. The whole system of government, or at least rule, is designed from top to bottom to make as sure as it's possible to get that it can't be overthrown from within. I'm sure Trump's highly qualified expert advisors on the subject, Witkoff and Kushner, told him about this small problem before he launched his attacks.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago
    Kushner’s main interest is to get money from Middle East investors. I think it’s important to remember that. Not sure about Witkoff. His main interest seems to be to protect Putin.
    - pseudohadamard 7mo ago
      And Saudi is pushing to continue the war as well, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that they control the only pipeline from the gulf to the Red Sea.
aucisson_masque 7mo ago
> I hope I sincerely hope too but the man is lunatic.
vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago
All the lost wars had very vague objectives. A war where you try to fight a military while trying to “liberate” the population in the same area basically can’t succeed. In WW2 they bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany and after the war they were the winners who set the course. They were also lucky that Germany and Japan were functioning societies that didn’t have much violent infighting. In Gulf War 1 there was a clear objective to get Iraq out of Kuwait. All the other wars depended on installing a friendly and competent government that would take over. That is a very hard thing to do. It’s too easy to support a friendly government that’s also corrupt and incompetent. In Iran it will be the same problem after military victory. The US doesn’t want to run the show so what’s next? Nobody knows and it will take years to see where this is going. I hope they don’t destroy too much infrastructure there so people can rebuild quickly and society goes back to some normal.
- etempleton 7mo ago
  The Middle East conflicts have all been follies because there is no real victory condition without completely seizing territory and claiming as your own. Not saying this would be a good or moral position, but half measures only, at best, kick the can down the road or, at worst, exacerbate the situation.
- justsomehnguy 7mo ago
  > They were also lucky that Germany and Japan were functioning societies that didn’t have much violent infighting. > functioning societies Sorry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

by mmooss 7mo ago

metalliqaz 7mo ago

Depends on how bad the leaks from the E-files are

pfannkuchen 7mo ago

But if the goal was actually to destabilize those places then maybe it worked as intended?

actionfromafar 7mo ago
If think assume too much competence. I'm sure there are various plans (ok maybe not with this "administration", their "plans" seems to be fast-forward grift) but I have very little confidence in them going in any particular direction.
mmooss 7mo ago
I can't think of any examples of that and don't see that in the wars listed above. Destabilized countries are bad news for entire regions and can become havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists, criminals, etc. And those things spread across borders. The idea that the Iranians will act on his wishes is a fantasy of someone who wants to win without paying the costs, as a freebie.
- pfannkuchen 7mo ago
  Destabilized nations are good if you are a nearby nation wanting to expand and you expect those other nations to oppose you.
  - mmooss 7mo ago
    The US isn't a nearby nation and doesn't want to expand by seizing countries anywhere, especially in the Mideast. None of Iran's neighbors - e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan - want to or have any capacity to invade Iran. A destabilized Iran is a nightmare for them.
pseudohadamard 7mo ago
The current lot in Iran came to power through revolution and they've made very sure that the same thing can't happen to them. The whole system of government, or at least rule, is designed from top to bottom to make as sure as it's possible to get that it can't be overthrown from within. I'm sure Trump's highly qualified expert advisors on the subject, Witkoff and Kushner, told him about this small problem before he launched his attacks.
- vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago
  Kushner’s main interest is to get money from Middle East investors. I think it’s important to remember that. Not sure about Witkoff. His main interest seems to be to protect Putin.
  - pseudohadamard 7mo ago
    And Saudi is pushing to continue the war as well, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that they control the only pipeline from the gulf to the Red Sea.

aucisson_masque 7mo ago

> I hope I sincerely hope too but the man is lunatic.

vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago

All the lost wars had very vague objectives. A war where you try to fight a military while trying to “liberate” the population in the same area basically can’t succeed. In WW2 they bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany and after the war they were the winners who set the course. They were also lucky that Germany and Japan were functioning societies that didn’t have much violent infighting. In Gulf War 1 there was a clear objective to get Iraq out of Kuwait. All the other wars depended on installing a friendly and competent government that would take over. That is a very hard thing to do. It’s too easy to support a friendly government that’s also corrupt and incompetent. In Iran it will be the same problem after military victory. The US doesn’t want to run the show so what’s next? Nobody knows and it will take years to see where this is going. I hope they don’t destroy too much infrastructure there so people can rebuild quickly and society goes back to some normal.

etempleton 7mo ago
The Middle East conflicts have all been follies because there is no real victory condition without completely seizing territory and claiming as your own. Not saying this would be a good or moral position, but half measures only, at best, kick the can down the road or, at worst, exacerbate the situation.
justsomehnguy 7mo ago
> They were also lucky that Germany and Japan were functioning societies that didn’t have much violent infighting. > functioning societies Sorry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives