You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
India-Pakistan
Strategy Page: Getting Inside The Training Cycle
2011-07-02
"They're dead, Jim."
Despite the Pakistani anger at the United States for flying into Pakistan to raid Osama bin Laden's hideout (in a military town), and the subsequent expulsion of many American military trainers and intel specialists, the CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign there continues. So far this year, there have been 41, compared to 118 for all of last year (and 53 in 2009, 33 in 2008, 4 in 2007, 2 in 2006 and 2005 and one in 2004). Attacked by Predator and Reaper UAVs, armed with missiles, the terrorists (al Qaeda, Taliban and the Haqqani Network) have lost about 50 senior leaders in the last six years, most of them in the last three years. These losses are not only bad for morale at the top, but are seriously disrupting terrorist activities. The terrorist losses have been severe, and include heads of operations, finance and intelligence. Many of the mid-level commanders were bomb making, and terror attack experts. These losses caused additional casualties as less skilled bomb makers died when their imperfect devices blew up while under construction. New bomb makers have been less skilled because of poor instruction.
One does have to wonder why the ISI doesn't send instructors. These are the good Taliban, after all, committing jihad in Afghanistan instead of at home.
The loss of operations commanders meant operatives were less effectively deployed, and more easily caught or killed. The damage to their intelligence operations meant there was less success in general, especially against the growing American informant network on the ground. The financial leadership losses has meant less income, and more reliance on stealing from locals, which makes the terror groups even more unpopular.
Posted by:trailing wife

#11  Pappy.
Let me try again. Let's presume that the hypo I mentioned could never happen in a millionbazillion years. Okay? Good.
Now, are there things the Iranians might be able to think of that we could be presumed to not want to do, but have to? Nuke Teheran after a US city gets nuked? Think of all those innocent civilians....
It's a hypo as an example of the question of whether we can be backed into a corner where we have to do what we cannot make ourselves do.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2011-07-02 23:31  

#10  Pappy. Suppose the mad mullahs decided to do it that way BECAUSE that's how it would end up.

Frankly Richard, don't think it would happen that way. Not unless they were really, really against the wall. The Mullahs and the IRGC leadership have gotten quite comfortable post-revolution. Both control nearly all of Iran's economy. The population is nowhere near as willing as they were some 30+ years ago.

On the other hand, they see what the Taliban have been able to do, plus they've gotten help in strategy and tactics areas from 'interested parties'. Hence I think it'll be more a n unconventional war along the lines of what is seen in Afghanistan, plus attacks on the Gulf States and Israel.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-07-02 23:15  

#9  As per #6, TOPIX/WORLDNEWS > [US]IRAN FUNNELING NEW WEAPONS TO IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN, which have rallegedly already been used by local Hard/Bad Boyz to kill or maim US troops.

* STALIN > was covertly violating the terms of the SOVIET-GERMAN NON-AGRESSION PACT, + pushing for the rapid modernization of the Soviet Army in anticipation of unilater attacking NAZI GERMANY = BFF ADOLF circa 1942-43, espec wid the bulk of Wehrmacht forces tied up agz US-supported Britain.

Adolf gets the bad press, but in reality he's quilty of attacking Stalinist Russia before Stalin attacked him ala "SOVIET/STALIN'S PEARL HARBOR" SURPRISE ATTACK.

Going back to IRAN, END OF THE COLD WAR + OWG-NWO + GLOBALISM" = the US is unlikely to unilater attack Iran unless ...
> IRAN-ordered/facilitated new 9-11 or worse occurs agz CONUS = ONE OR MORE MAJOR US ALLY, i.e. DE FACTO "THREAT TO PEACE + SECURITY"???
> UNO = UNSC Mandate [Globalist?] to do so in any case, as opposed to the US suppor NEUTRAL-AGZ-ALL-PARTIES UN NFZS inside Iran.
> At last check, the majority of ordinary Iranians are Nationalist, Regionalist, + pro-Islam/Muslim, but NOT agz the US-WEST despite the anti-US Mullahocracy in charge of Iran's Govt.
> IRAN'S OIL = US, GLOBAL ECONOMICS.
> OWG-NWO "GLOBALISM" = set up of REGIONAL, CONTINENTAL, + TRANS-REGIONAL/CONTINENTAL GOVTS, e.g. NAU, EU, African Union, Mediterranean Union?, Asian Union = Community of Asian Nations?, ..............@etc.

NOT EVEN COUNTING ALL OF THE POSSIBLE OWG-AFFILIATED LESSOR SUB-ENTITIES.

All things equal, CHANGE IN IRAN = will ideally occur via DOMESTIC, IRAN-FOR-IRANIANS LED "REGIME CHANGE", NOT WAR.

The post-Cold War, poet-911 focii of the US = US-WEST/ALLIED is agz "ROGUE" STATES + LEADERS, + "ROGUE" NUKE-WMD ARMED MILTERR GROUPS to include Cells + Nons.

Again, Nuke-wannabe Iran prefers to stay on the Media, Diplomatic defensive while it nuclearizes - Iran is unlikely to openly declare itself a de facto NucWeaps State until such time its non-State/NGOS MilTerr Proxies also possess a "sufficient" or par capability, or greater, to routinely + PDeniably attack the US-WEST wid Nukes-WMDS in TerrorOps.

In its own way, Iran also fears "Rogue" MilTerrs + collapse/implosion of its Manifest Destiny + Shia Islam, + the National, Global consequences of "Peak Oil/Resources" + New Technologies, etc. in future.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-07-02 22:57  

#8  Pappy. Suppose the mad mullahs decided to do it that way BECAUSE that's how it would end up. And figured we'd back off after enough bad PR. They know the left and the dems and the MSM have their back on this sort of thing.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2011-07-02 19:52  

#7  Pappy. I get that. I also know that it is impossible to explain anybody starting any war in the twentieth century without him being seriously wrong about a lot of stuff.
It's only in the old military technothrillers that the fighting started in a logical way. Real world, not so much.
On the other hand, I was using that as a hypo. There are other hypos where we might end up having to do something equally bad-looking.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2011-07-02 19:50  

#6  the CIA decapitation (kill the leaders) campaign there [Pakistan] continues.

George W. declared Iran part of the Axis of Evil. I have often wondered why we did not try to decapitate the leadership of Iran. They are stirring the pot of unrest in many, many places. They provided weapons which killed our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are still doing this. It would seem that several countries in the M.E. would support this. Why not go after the heart of the beast?
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-07-02 18:07  

#5  But here's a possibility: We get into a conventional war with them. As last time with Iraq, they get a bunch of kids to run at our lines, each with a get-to-heaven card and two grenades.

Richard, it's a bit of a different situation now.

The political climate has changed a bit. There are many casualties of the Iran-Iraq war still kicking around. Okay, maybe not actually kicking, but you get the idea. A lot of water has passed under the bridge; some of the gloss of the new theocracy has worn off. And then there's the Green Revolution.

I think Iranian tactics will be different. The IRGC leadership has been receiving training, both outside the country and from foreign assets within Iran. We're likely to see something more along the lines of Hesb'allah, the Taliban, or the North Koreans, plus a few more twists provided by Iran's mentors.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-07-02 17:47  

#4  Pappy
Brings up a possible problem. Somebody, probably Wretchard, asked the hypo of what would happen if the Iranians put us in the position of having to do something we couldn't make ourselves do. Nuking them, for example. Not that we couldn't, under some circumstances, make ourselves do that.
But here's a possibility:
We get into a conventional war with them. As last time with Iraq, they get a bunch of kids to run at our lines, each with a get-to-heaven card and two grenades. By a bunch, I mean tens of thousands.
We have to kill them. Killing tens of thousands of kids with rifles and machine guns and submunitions and artillery and mortars, carpeting the battlefield with dead Iranian kids.
Imagine the reactions in various quarters.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2011-07-02 17:20  

#3  Prior to WW II, Stalin purged a huge proportion of senior and middle officers... Big, big problem for the Red Army at the beginning.

Same with the Mullahs after they established the Iranian theocracy. They stalemated the Iraqis only by throwing bodies into the fray.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-07-02 12:57  

#2  Yes, being a good socialist, Stalin wasn't into promotion for 'merit' till the Germans were getting too close to Moscow.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-07-02 11:21  

#1  Prior to WW II, Stalin purged a huge proportion of senior and middle officers. I recall reading the figure. I don't recall it. One of those numbers that is so unlikely that it simply doesn't compute.
There have been reports or at least speculations that the notably paranoid Stalin was faked into it by German intel.
There was no time after that for the replacements to shake out, get experience, go through the various advanced schools, and be promoted, demoted, siberiaed or put in responsible positions as a result of performance before the war started.
Big, big problem for the Red Army at the beginning.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey   2011-07-02 10:43  

00:00