This. It is estimated that approximately one in six US combat deaths in Iraq were the direct result of Iranian action.Originally Posted by GardoneVT
This. It is estimated that approximately one in six US combat deaths in Iraq were the direct result of Iranian action.
Speaking of key leaders...
https://connectingvets.radio.com/art...mo91EcVGzxtjEc
Special Operations Forces Conducted Raids Following Soleimani's Death
In the wake of an American airstrike that killed Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, Connecting Vets has learned U.S. Joint Special Operations Command conducted follow on operations.
A source speaking on the condition of anonymity confirmed that immediately following Soleimani's death operators from JSOC deployed to capture PMU leaders in Baghdad. At least one of the two targets was successfully detained by American forces.
The latest round of drone strikes and JSOC night raids comes after a series of escalating events that have transpired on the strategic level over the course of decades, but in more immediate terms starting with a series of rocket attacks that Iranian linked Shia militias had allegedly waged against bases in Iraq where American service members were present.
Last edited by HCM; 01-03-2020 at 12:35 PM.
Story from The Long War Journal regarding how Soleimani's overconfidence led to successful targeting. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...crosshairs.php . Years of getting away murder led him to believe he was untouchable.
This will not lead to a widespread conflict in the ME because of simple math. Countries that are $22T in the hole (and sinking fast) cannot afford to prosecute a massive regional conflict like OIF I/II. This is especially true while they are simultaneously engaged in trade and technology cold wars with the world’s second largest economy. Moreover, we do not have (nor could we get) the troop strength for a redo in the ME and there is absolutely zero chance that NATO allies are coming to our aid under Trump even if we invoked Article 5. Finally, the Iranians could kidnap Nancy Pelosi and mail her in pieces back to the Democrats in Congress, and still none of them would be willing to fund a major conflict in the ME while Trump is POTUS.
Iran may retaliate with some bombs in downtown NYC or DC, and we may deliver some cruise missiles to Tehran, but you will not see 200,000 American troops amassing in IQ, Kuwait, or SA anytime soon.
I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.
"Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo
WWII, and the US's largest mobilization to date, happened when our country was not only in debt but in terrible financial shape and it happened to do our economy quite well. The idea that countries don't go to war when they're in bad condition or in debt is contrary to reality.
You have some decent points, but dismiss the fact that there's a bunch of countries in the ME that would love to brawl with Iran......and while we don't have the ability to pull together what we did prior in OIF on our own, we absolutely have the capacity to support a ME Coalition with C4ISR.....especially when you consider that KSA would bankroll it. A middle eastern coalition backed by American C4ISR would steamroll Iran's conventional military, and my guess is they're shittin' skittles right now because they want Iraq to remain a buffer state and not go decidedly pro-Iran. They'll go to war with Iran if that happens, because it would 100% be the eventual outcome regardless and something they'll have to preempt if they want to maintain their sovereignty.
Now if Iran kidnapped The Speaker and mailed her in pieces to Congress, I think your entire argument would go out the window. If Iran were to successfully target anyone in our presidential line of succession, it's game time whether you like it or not.
ETA: Just to capture the point before someone brings it up, I understand that Iran has twice the population of KSA and the rest of the ME amounts to a token population. What they have is money, and there's no sense in wasting half your population in war when you can buy Bangladeshis to fight for you.
Last edited by TGS; 01-03-2020 at 02:35 PM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I'm also finding most of the predictions fairly histrionic. Sensei summarized the US's position perfectly, and Iran would have nothing to gain from a toe-to-toe conflict. I suspect Iran will resume their nuclear program to the fullest extent of their ability while finding some flashy way to retaliate on principle, but in the immediate term, things will likely return to their low-scale simmer in a few weeks.
I think it would something much more dire, like Iran actually testing nukes, for anyone to make a serious push at regime change.
"Sapiens dicit: 'Ignoscere divinum est, sed noli pretium plenum pro pizza sero allata solvere.'" - Michelangelo
To be fair, histrionic is a great word to use for droning two senior military commanders at an airport (1 in his own country that we're not even engaged in hostilities with), and an airport where we have our own assets based, no less.
How much you wanna' bet the drone took off from the same airport, barely got out of the flight pattern prior to weapons release, and landed all within 15 minutes?
If we didn't want to be histrionic, we wouldn't have done it so publicly where it put both Iran and Iraq in the hotseat. There are much more conventional, unpublicized ways this could have been handled.
So, we're so far in left field at this point that it's not really fair to call any predictions, discussions, or other considerations "histrionic" at this point unless they based upon calling Zoroaster from hiding to fight a space battle with the Muslims to retake Persia.
Totally agree that Iran has nothing to gain from escalating with the US.
I didn't know how to properly put my thoughts on paper to address this at first, but now I do.
The 82nd's IRF deployment would have happened if an embassy in AFRICOM's AO had been stormed and AFRICOM's SP-MAGTF deployed. AFRICOM would need someone to give the combatant commander an alternate option for projecting force for whatever other contingency arises, whether dumping more bodies into an existing one or whether it was for a completely different contingency. It's not a deployment that was aimed at Iran in particular....it's the keep the combatant commander's capabilities intact.
Now, it's a combatant commander's asset, so now that we're are "steppin'" against Iran, they could absolutely become part of that plan....but that's not necessarily why they got the call to begin with. It's similar to when you have a gigantic warehouse fire and call out a bunch of your fire engines, and then call in fire engines from other towns to help backfill your deployed assets and make sure the town still has coverage for other fires. They're the fire engine covering the Township of Ranger, because Ranger Township Fire Department just deployed the bulk of their assets for a 3-alarm fire. Now, it may turn out that the fire department ends up using those mutual aid fire engines if that 3-alarm warehouse fire grows out of control, but that's not necessarily initially the reason that Ranger Township called them in.
That's the point that I was trying to make, is all.
Last edited by TGS; 01-03-2020 at 02:55 PM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
It would be farsi-cal.
(There Iran, I thumb my puns in your general direction! Come back tomorrow for further insults!)
There's nothing civil about this war.
Who knows what could happen.....
Go to twitter and type in:
#tnxpotus4soleimani
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/T...imani?src=hash
Last edited by HCM; 01-03-2020 at 02:56 PM.
