Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 12/03/2004 View Thu 12/02/2004 View Wed 12/01/2004 View Tue 11/30/2004 View Mon 11/29/2004 View Sun 11/28/2004 View Sat 11/27/2004
1
2004-12-03 Iraq-Jordan
U.S. Airborne Troops Headed for Iraq in Major Buildup
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-03 5:29:19 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6462 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Go East, young men, and godspeed!
Posted by BH 2004-12-03 5:32:22 PM||   2004-12-03 5:32:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ow! Ow! Ow! Sorry! I forgot Air Assault. Stop hitting me with that.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-12-03 5:32:58 PM||   2004-12-03 5:32:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 5:38:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 5:41:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 5:45:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 5:54:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 6:09:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 6:12:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 6:15:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 6:18:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 6:20:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 7:14:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Current status of US Navy

Posted by ZoGg 2004-12-03 7:24:36 PM|| [http://www.americanintelligence.us/]  2004-12-03 7:24:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 7:25:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 7:36:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-12-03 7:49:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 8:11:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 8:12:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 8:56:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 10:15:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 10:27:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#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||   2004-12-03 10:41:31 PM|| Front Page Top

01:43 mojo
01:43 mojo
01:42 mojo
01:42 mojo
00:06 Sobiesky
00:01 mojo
23:56 Alaska Paul
23:45 Alaska Paul
23:42 Mike Kozlowski
23:35 Fred
23:29 Zenster
23:27 Zhang Fei
23:24 Zhang Fei
23:21 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:19 Matt
23:14 Robin Burk
23:13 Mark Espinola
23:11 Capt America
23:10 lex
23:06 Robin Burk
23:02 lex
22:47 mojo
22:41 JP
22:38 Zenster
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com