Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Reportedly, Iran is in the process of reconstructing its military to fight more along the lines of guerilla warfare. This doesn't bode well for the hawks who would love to invade yet another Middle Eastern country.

For those who are new, here's a quick primer on the Iranian military. The core of the Iranian ground forces, the Iranian army, is based on traditional lines designed to fight traditional warfare. However, the Iranian military also has an arm called the Revolutionary Guards; they are in some ways comparable to our own National Guard, save that one, they are far more lightly equipped, and two, they are designed to fight a "people's war:" in a traditional conventional conflict, they will fight as 'human waves,' using sheer numbers to overwhelm the enemy. When they isn't possible, they break down into individual cells to fight a guerilla war. There are far more Revolutionary Guards than regular army personnel, and undoubtedly the Revolutionary Guards would form the core of any Iranian resistance to a foreign invasion.

So now the counts against invasion are: 1
1)Larger opponent (Iran has 3 to 4 times as many people as Iraq)
2)Popular resistance in the target
3)Harsher terrain (most of Iran is mountainous)
4)Even thinner reasoning for military action
5)Lack of international support for an invasion...

Maybe these are odds even our administraiton can understand...


Blogger Champaign American said...

Yeah, all the same arguments were made about Afghanistan and about Iraq the first time and the second time. Try not to take this personally, but Iran would be obliterated if the U.S. Military decided to go in there.

6:46 AM  
Blogger GeneralBT said...

I would beg to disagree... mostly because at the same time we go into Iran, we still have to maintain commitment levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, and (of all places) Central Europe. When the Pentagon is publishing requests for more soldiers and the National Guard is being stretched thinner than ever, it's certainly not the time to be contemplating another invasion... especially when the most conservative estimates from the DoD itself call for at least 200,000 troops to properly do a 'regime change' in Iran (compare this to the current size of the entire active U.S. Army, about 450,000... 150,000 of which are in Iraq, 30,000 in South Korea, with more in Japan and Central Europe). You've got a larger target, more guerillas, in a place that's more mountainous (lets face it, Iraq is either desert or the Tigris/Euphrates Valley for the most part... nothing compared to trying to find guerilla bands in the Zagros Mountains). Sure, if the U.S. was willing to blast the place to glass with a nuclear barrage, we'd win. But short of the use of WMDs on our part, its truly a nightmare guerilla scenario.

7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have yet to read anything that suggests we would actually put boots on the ground. What I have read indicates a willingness to use precision guided munitions against those sites that have been identified as part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. I would find that scenario far more likely. The question then becomes to ensure we get those sites that have underground levels with those munitions as well as those sites that IAEA inspectors have not been allowed to visit, but strongly suspect exist.

2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... » »

10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it video editing programs

4:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home