Thread: Iran Air War: U.S. Plans For Possibility, But Goal Remains Unclear

Originally Posted by Blademaster

You're kidding me? Operation Linebacker I and II,anyone?

Both conducted at the end of the war for the U.S. And Linebacker II especially an object lesson of what could've been possible 7 years earlier.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Or for that matter, Operation Rolling Thunder?

You mean the poster child for target restrictions?

Originally Posted by Blademaster

US bombed the crap out of N. Vietnam, dropped napalm and agent orange (which could be arguably a WMD weapon/bio-chemical warfare) all over the place.

Napalm was in use during World War II. Not exactly new technology, nor a WMD. I'm not sure why you even brought it up. Furthermore, we're talking about target restrictions, not ordnance restrictions.

As for Agent Orange, it's design and purpose was as a defoliant, not a anti-personnel or anti-material weapon.

The horrible side effects are just that, side effects and not intentional (Small comfort to those affected, I fully acknowledge.) and once again, immaterial to the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

North Korea- Incheon landing, massive artillery duels, march all the way to Yula River before got pushed by Chinese armies.

Great, you've covered the first 90 days of the war. The remainder of the war saw everything north of the Yalu to be completely off-limits to US airpower, meaning the entire mass of Chinese logistics was untouchable, not to mention the Chinese airfields.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Taliban - come on.

Yes, come on. We're talking about conventional operations, not insurgencies. And in the conventional operations, the Taliban were flattened by US airpower. After that, things got much more restrictive. Sometimes for good reasons, granted.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

That's pretty much the full might of US without resorting to nukes.

The full might of the US military hasn't truly been seen since Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom (and even then Rumsfeld wanted to go to war "on the cheap" with the numbers of ground forces)

"Doesn't matter. Full might is what US brought to bear in those theaters. Cannot be help if other enemy forces tie down the rest of US forces elsewhere, which is the same situation with Iran. US has other regions to be concerned about and US cannot afford to get into a full blown war with Iran, involving its full might because that action would bring other countries into play, namely, Russia and other countries."

Russia? You're kidding? Right? Why would Russia put its nat'l survival at stake over Iran and how, exactly, would they engage American forces? Their navy is incapable of challenging us in the gulf. Their army is neither prepared to do battle with us nor would they have an objective. I suppose they could commit their airforce and air defense elements to Iran's defense. Do you really believe they'd do so?

"...other countries..."? Who might those be?

America didn't bring it's full conventional might to bear in N. Korea, S. Vietnam, Iraq or, certainly, Afghanistan. As I previously said, "Not even close...".In no case have we been engaged in a struggle for our nat'l survival. Suggesting otherwise indicates a poor grasp of American military capabilities available during any of those wars.

S-2,

In no case have we been engaged in a struggle for our nat'l survival.

Then why all these wars? Besides, following same argument, the countries on the other side won, they are still on the map.

Originally Posted by S2

"Doesn't matter. Full might is what US brought to bear in those theaters. Cannot be help if other enemy forces tie down the rest of US forces elsewhere, which is the same situation with Iran. US has other regions to be concerned about and US cannot afford to get into a full blown war with Iran, involving its full might because that action would bring other countries into play, namely, Russia and other countries."

Russia? You're kidding? Right? Why would Russia put its nat'l survival at stake over Iran and how, exactly, would they engage American forces? Their navy is incapable of challenging us in the gulf. Their army is neither prepared to do battle with us nor would they have an objective. I suppose they could commit their airforce and air defense elements to Iran's defense. Do you really believe they'd do so?

"...other countries..."? Who might those be?

America didn't bring it's full conventional might to bear in N. Korea, S. Vietnam, Iraq or, certainly, Afghanistan. As I previously said, "Not even close...".In no case have we been engaged in a struggle for our nat'l survival. Suggesting otherwise indicates a poor grasp of American military capabilities available during any of those wars.

Why would USA risk its national survival over China back in 1969 when its national survival was not at stake. As for full might, I meant that what US could afford to bring to the theater. If US could afford to bring more, it would have but it didn't. Likewise with Iran.

Other countries -- Could be China, India, Pakistan, other Islamic countries, or even Iraq, who knows. War is unpredictable. So US can only afford a limited strike here in order to avoid expanding the conflict to other areas or bringing other countries into the conflict and not necessarily on the same side. It is that unknown factor that makes me pause from going full in with everything unless Iran fires the first shot.

"Then why all these wars?"

Korea and S. Vietnam were wars fought to preserve the existing governments and status quo. The former was a success. The latter? Not so. Iraq was, IMHO, about unfinished business and the unacceptable threat posed to regional allies. Afghanistan speaks for itself. It began as our reply to 9-11. It's since morphed into something, IMV, unrecognizable.

"Besides, following same argument, the countries on the other side won, they are still on the map."

The previous governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are not. The N. Vietnamese government's ties with America have never been closer. One previous patron has been diminished and the other poses a greater threat to N. Vietnam than America...by far.

In no case with any of those examples has the full military potential of the United States been brought to bear.

Originally Posted by S2

"Then why all these wars?"

Korea and S. Vietnam were wars fought to preserve the existing governments and status quo. The former was a success. The latter? Not so. Iraq was, IMHO, about unfinished business and the unacceptable threat posed to regional allies. Afghanistan speaks for itself. It began as our reply to 9-11. It's since morphed into something, IMV, unrecognizable.

"Besides, following same argument, the countries on the other side won, they are still on the map."

The previous governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are not. The N. Vietnamese government's ties with America have never been closer. One previous patron has been diminished and the other poses a greater threat to N. Vietnam than America...by far.

In no case with any of those examples has the full military potential of the United States been brought to bear.

All those governments are gone, including those who were sitting in the White House. It wasn't about anyone's national survival. The way I understand it, was about a regime change into something more acceptable to USA (and her allies o/c).

Why the stakes were not risen? Couldn't bring more? I know that when I go to work I stay until the job is done.

Back to Iranians, I think the regime there should go to take courses from some Latin american leaders - How to annoy USA and still be in power at home

"Could be China, India, Pakistan, other Islamic countries, or even Iraq, who knows. War is unpredictable."

Not that unpredictable. While all sorts of assymetric permutations exist, there's not been a hint of preparedness by China, Pakistan and/or India to militarily intercede on behalf of Iran. None would be able to do so effectively either. Not, at least, without an unacceptable cost. China, India and, certainly, Pakistan would sit that one out.

"...So US can only afford a limited strike here in order to avoid expanding the conflict to other areas or bringing other countries into the conflict and not necessarily on the same side."

This suggests you haven't either paid attention to the discussion closely or, otherwise, have an obstinate commitment to an unsustainable position. America has no interest in a land campaign inside Iran...nor is it necessary.

America, should we initiate the conflict, will conduct an air-sea campaign that shall prove both comprehensive and enduring. There'll be nothing, short of nuclear weapons, limited about the force brought to bear against the Iranian military. It will be sufficient to remove the threat or coerce Iran into acquiescence. I'm convinced of that.

You should be too.

"All those governments are gone, including those who were sitting in the White House..."

Hmmm...George Bush left after two terms in office. That was the maximum term limit. Hussein left with a rope around his neck and Mullah Omar left Afghanistan on the back of a motorscooter driven by Mullah Baradar. Maybe you don't but I see a difference.

"Back to Iranians, I think the regime there should go to take courses from some Latin american leaders - How to annoy USA and still be in power at home "

Well...Hugo Chavez and Iran appear to be close so perhaps the mullahs have done exactly that.

Originally Posted by S2

"All those governments are gone, including those who were sitting in the White House..."

Hmmm...George Bush left after two terms in office. That was the maximum term limit. Hussein left with a rope around his neck and Mullah Omar left Afghanistan on the back of a motorscooter driven by Mullah Baradar. Maybe you don't but I see a difference.

Don't want to be rude, but Kennedy left with this world with Ho Chi Min in power, Bush Sr. Left the office with Hussein in power, Dear Leader(s) survived many presidents...

"Back to Iranians, I think the regime there should go to take courses from some Latin american leaders - How to annoy USA and still be in power at home "

Well...Hugo Chavez and Iran appear to be close so perhaps the mullahs have done exactly that.

Hugo is the student, they should go to the teacher

"Don't want to be rude, but Kennedy left with this world with Ho Chi Min in power, Bush Sr. Left the office with Hussein in power, Dear Leader(s) survived many presidents... "

Not rude but unsure your point. At no time was the removal of Kim Jung-il a stated foreign policy objective of the U.S. government nor were we ever at war with his nation. Preservation of the S. Korean state was assured and Dear Leader's father, Kim Il-Sung goal to forcibly unify the peninsula denied.

There seems little question but that the U.S. could have marched on Baghdad following DESERT STORM. It wasn't an explicit objective for George H. Bush. It became so for George W. Bush. The results are before you.

Kennedy? I suppose you're correct but, then again, Ho Chi Minh died without ever seeing the south reunified with the north. So? It seems irrelevant. Actually much of our comments seem a departure, if not derailment, from this thread.