| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| U.S. Airborne Troops Headed for Iraq in Major Buildup |
| 2004-12-03 |
| The U.S. military kicked off a buildup of forces in Iraq by 12,000 troops on Friday, with soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division leaving Fort Bragg, North Carolina to boost security for Jan. 30 Iraqi elections... This makes a total of 150,000 soldiers, far more that for any possible need to maintain election security. Far more than needed even for an invasion of Syria and Lebanon. With the arrival of Airborne units, every major modern ground warfare component is assembled: Leg infantry, Airborne infantry, Light Cavalry (Stryker), Heavy Cavalry, Heavy Armor and Support forces. Needless to say, the air and naval components are also fully available. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #22 Anonymoose - I agree we can chew a lot strategically. Tactically our mouth is full at the moment. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-12-03 10:41:31 PM |
| #21 No reason to visit major population centers unless they have some facility that cannot be JDAM'ed. The rest of the attack it to stop the Iranian Army and Air Force from doing their thing, if they feel so inclined. The target list is the 350-or-so nuclear sites, less anything that can be destroyed by cruise missiles and JDAMs. Once all of them are reduced, we can retire and dominate the whole border region with artillery and anti-missle batteries. The optimum outcome is that their nuclear program is effectively halted for ten years, plus their scientists are no longer quite so enthusiastic about screwing around with physics. Works for me, Anonymoose. No boots on the ground and effective denial of near-term nuclear capability. Toss in hits on the nuke sites' air raid shelters plus a decap strike or two and I'm one happy camper. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-12-03 10:27:10 PM |
| #20 I would guess the same role as did Napoleon's Army in Italy. It forces the Iranians to commit forces on the chance of a second front. And if they don't... |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-03 10:15:03 PM |
| #19 What's the force capability at that Afghan base on Iran's eastern border? What role would those forces play if we struck Iran? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-03 8:56:57 PM |
| #18 The American troop build most likely has a duel geostrategic purpose. One being the Iraqi elections of course. The timing of Iraqi election is made to order if one is examining the grand picture in the Persian Gulf region. Having ample troop strength plus air & sea directly on the Iraqi-Iranian border for the inevitable showdown over Tehran's offensive nuclear weapons build up. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-12-03 8:12:00 PM |
| #17 JP: to paraphrase Gen Abazaid the other day: "We can chew a hell of a lot." I think the strategy here is not to conquer, just to destroy and leave. No reason to visit major population centers unless they have some facility that cannot be JDAM'ed. The rest of the attack it to stop the Iranian Army and Air Force from doing their thing, if they feel so inclined. The target list is the 350-or-so nuclear sites, less anything that can be destroyed by cruise missiles and JDAMs. Once all of them are reduced, we can retire and dominate the whole border region with artillery and anti-missle batteries. The optimum outcome is that their nuclear program is effectively halted for ten years, plus their scientists are no longer quite so enthusiastic about screwing around with physics. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-03 8:11:16 PM |
| #16 "Dont forget the black carriers..... they carry the black helos and black F-16s...." All designed to get Black Turbans spinning a gravity distorting rotational speeds. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-03 7:49:22 PM |
| #15 Rumsfeld will not bite off more than we can chew. Buildup is to protect the elections - look for a declaration of victory shortly thereafter. If that happens - then Iran should be very afraid. A refit this summer - look for late fall when the temperatures moderate. |
| Posted by: JP 2004-12-03 7:36:49 PM |
| #14 This looks to me like we're in the process of creating options. Maybe this is preparation for using military force against Iran. Maybe it isn't. The important thing is, the Mad Mullahs know it could be. I have a hunch 2005 is going to be one helluva nerve-wracking year. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-12-03 7:25:18 PM |
| #13 Current status of US Navy |
| Posted by: ZoGg 2004-12-03 7:24:36 PM |
| #12 You might consider that a lack of carriers might be more significant--the Arabian Gulf is just too easy to nuke, not necessarily with missiles. Instead, I would look for a shift of B-52s--which now carry 51 independently satellite targeted 500 pounders--recent news, solo or small group guided missile cruisers and SLCM-capable subs. As far as ground forces go, I would imagine 1/4 would perform a heavy armored thrust, with 1/2 border defense and 1/4 in reserve. The purpose would be to utterly trash Iran's nuclear production and then leave, probably taking out their air force and any known missile production, too. The Airborne would quickly snatch any isolated facilities, the Armor would engage and destroy any Iranian military that interfered, with Strykers along for light cavalry. Use the same basic concept as Gulf War I, except with a coordinated ground offensive at the same time. The Israelis may or may not play. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-03 7:14:53 PM |
| #11 I agree with LH and Frank, but think a blockade of Iranian oil shipments is a possibility. That's why carrier battle (ready?) groups are crucial. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-12-03 6:20:15 PM |
| #10 Dont forget the black carriers..... they carry the black helos and black F-16s.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-12-03 6:18:17 PM |
| #9 How big an air compressor would you need for an Acme Brand Inflatable Nimitz? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-12-03 6:15:59 PM |
| #8 BTW - I don't think we'll do a massive invasion of Iran...special ops groups, sure |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-03 6:12:38 PM |
| #7 yep - 2 of 3 berths have carriers..unless it's a VERY clever disguise |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-12-03 6:09:39 PM |
| #6 LH, I tend to agree with you but I'm going to reconsider if I hear about any significant naval movement. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-12-03 5:54:18 PM |
| #5 Sorry to spoil the fun - i dont think this the invasion of Iran. Weve got some coalition partners getting ready to leave, weve got the Iraqi forces making steady, but still slow progress, and weve got a target rich environment as the rats run for cover from Fallujah. And we've got an election that HAS to be protected, and adversaries who will blow every asset theyve got to stop it. This IS to keep the lid on in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-12-03 5:45:11 PM |
| #4 Tibor---I was going to say that. Where are the carriers? If I remember Frank saying that the Stennis and the Reagan are still in San Diego, then we will need some carriers from somewhere else. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-12-03 5:41:47 PM |
| #3 Anonymoose, I will look for the deployment of carrier battle groups (or whatever they're called nowadays) to the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean to see if we're really gearing up for something. Also, you missed something that is over there -- amphibious assault capability. Take that! And that! Now go forth and sin no more. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-12-03 5:38:27 PM |
| #2 Ow! Ow! Ow! Sorry! I forgot Air Assault. Stop hitting me with that. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-12-03 5:32:58 PM |
| #1 Go East, young men, and godspeed! |
| Posted by: BH 2004-12-03 5:32:22 PM |