Anyone have any idea of the logistics involved to invade Iran?

[fujiyama]

Is it feasible? Maybe some of those with a good knowledge of military history and the current state of the US military can help me out.

Personally I just don't see it happening right away. Iraq hasn't been nearly as easy as they assumed ("elections" or not, they expected flowers and candy - that we didn't get).

In all honesty, with what military would this war be fought with? As far as I know, we have about 200k troops in Iraq right (my numbers are probably off - sorry)?

Say about half of our active duty is in Iraq, where are the troops? OK, fine, they can have a draft but the midterms are only a little more than a year and a half away, and the senate is still not filibuster proof (though I can't see any Dem filibustering a war). So even if they did have a draft (which I assume wouldn't be under way for another 6 months to a year), how could they do it?

None of this takes the casualties from Iraq into account, which are higher than the deaths. Not to mention troops that this administration like doesn't want to pull out of Iraq.

Also keep in mind Iran is much larger than Iraq and has a much more capable military.

Plus where's the money? The nation is already heavilly in debt.

I don't think we'll be in Iran (if at all) until after the '06 midterms. After all, they waited until after '02 last time.


ON EDIT: I MEANT IRAN - As Ali G said, it's only 1 letter away!

[whistle]

1. Iraq has already been invaded to the tune of $250 billion....

...and $80 to $100 billion per year for occupation and base building for the next decade. That's well over $1.2 trillion. Now the president is saber rattling against Iran, a country with the same level of oil reserves but at least four times greater land mass and lots of mountains for resistance fighters to hide in. I put the cost to invade and hold at better than $2.5 trillion in spending or about what the president believes he can get by dismantling social security. The price of having chicken hawks running our country's foreign policy does get expensive!

[izzie]

2. I am sure you mean Iran . Do they have much of an army?

I have not read about it. Be fore the first Bush went to war with Iraq he said it had the third best army in the world, then we bombed it for 12 years and son Bush went in.. I hate to say this but I do not think we will fight any one with a really good army as we do not like to see Am. killed.We could of course bomb the hell out of them and never send in a land army.

[bananas]

3. Do you mean Iraq or Iran?

To invade Iraq would require about 500,000 troops.
Iran is much larger and would require many more troops.

According to Hersh, we aren't going to invade,
just do some bombing, and then the teenagers will
rise up and overthrow the clerics.

My understanding:
The PNAC plan doesn't require an actual invasion.
All they want to do is to eliminate threats.
If a country is left in chaos, that is a PNAC success,
because manufacturing WMD requires a stable government.
So Iraq is a success if they only have 2 hours of electricity
a day, and Iran will be a success if we bomb some of their
major power plants.
They really believed we would be greeted with flowers in Iraq,
but that wasn't necessary to their goals, which is why they
are continuing their same plan.

[fujiyama]

4. I meant Iran

My mistake.

Either way, what you said makes sense. I noticed that the inevitable chaos and destruction that occurs is of no bother to the PNAC.

Of course another option is simple having the Israelies do it. I have no doubt they would, but I'm sure they'll weigh the risks (Iran has some ballistic missile capability, perhaps of hitting inside Israel).

The PNAC people truly are insane and vile beings.

[bananas]

6. Human Wave Attacks in the Iran-Iraq War

Here is some info on how Iran fought against Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Human_Wave_Attacks_in_the_Iran-Iraq_War

Human Wave Attacks in the Iran-Iraq War
...
One un-named East European journalist is reported to have seen "tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about 20 to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack."<4> (http://countrystudies.us/iraq/104.htm).

[ikri]

9. Great way to start a revolution

According to Hersh, we aren't going to invade, just do some bombing, and then the teenagers will rise up and overthrow the clerics.

Yup, once * bombs their country enough, killing their friends & relatives I'm sure the young people of Iran will rise up against their own government and not against the US.

[Seabiscuit]

5. Iraq was a "cakewalk" compared to the disaster of invading Iran.

And these throghouly incompetent crooks in the administration would suffer their greatest setback in history - not ready for it, not feasible, completely misconceived and misunderstood. A formula for utter disaster. And what poor military lackeys are they going to use as cannon fodder? Our military's already overextended an depleted.

[jody]

7. Anyone have any idea of the logistics involved to invade Iran? YES!

The US can bomb for a short time but that's all.

We do not have the operational and logistics forces to actually invade Iran.

[LynnTheDem]

8. No it isn't feasable. Not enough troops even with a draft.

And there is simply no way America could occupy Iran.

Iran has no citizen support for an American invasion & occupation; large majorities of people in many ME states voted OBL as more trustworthy than bush.

Iran has weapons we as of yet have no defense against (ie sunburn missiles.)

Iran has a huge standing army.

Iran has a population of nearly 70 million.

Iran is 3xs larger than Iraq and mountainous.

Iran, unlike Iraq, has allies.

If we tried to invade & occupy Iran, we'd get creamed.

Iran: A Bridge too Far?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

14. Let me add...

Iran has spent the last fifteen years reguilding its military after the Gulf War -- Iraq's army was in ruins.

Iran hasn't been half-starved by a decade of UN Sanctions.

No "Coalition of the Willing" is willing to invade Iran.

It would be a bloodbath.

Bush can rattle his saber all he wants, but the Iranian government knows that those are empty threats. We're not going to invade -- the only plausible scenario are tactical air strikes and even that is doubtful. If I were Iran, I'd mass 100,000 troops on the Iraqi border and tell the U.S. that if you violate our air space, your little occupation in Iraq is going to get a whole lot more complicated.

[oasis]

10. Rummy's solution: MOAB.

:nuke:

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. It'd probably require massive conscription.

Active strength, currently, is ten divisions, or about 170,000 troops, give or take 25,000 or so. There are eleven reserve divisions. (A division is somewhere around 15,000-17,000 soldiers.)

The Iranian army is about 540,000 active, and another 350,000 reserve. Their equipment and tactics may not be as good as America's, but they have, as you can see, 2:1 numerical superiority and the advantage of fighting on their home ground.

Not to mention the fact that Iran also has highly advanced missiles and extremely capable Russian-made fighter aircraft that have actually outperformed F-15's and F-16's in exercises. So the air-superiority campaign would meet stiff resistance and likely incur appreciable losses for the US.

Logistically, it may be feasible, but it would also be extremely bloody. And if victory is the objective, it might require an additional army corps or two.

[Cooley Hurd]

12. I doubt it'll be an invasion...

I can't see how the US military could launch a ground offensive on a nation as large and as well-armed as Iran. It'll probably be surgical air strikes, in hopes of destabilizing the gov't. Of course, it'll fail. But that won't stop the US and Israel from trying...:grr:

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Well, Israel won't be able to just buzz in and bomb as it would be a

two-day mission to reach the so-called nuclear manufacturing plants. And its planes must pass over the boundaries of one of two unfriendly countries to get there, either Saudi Arabia or Syria (I think). But that's a win-win situation right there. If an Israeli plane were shot down, the U.S. would get involved for the purpose of "defending an ally" even though the ally was acting aggressively against another sovereign country.