Would A War With Iran Require A Draft?

[Yavin4]

I'm no military expert, but going to war with Iran doesn't seem likely without some sort of military draft. Iran doesn't have a huge military, but they can fight back unlike Iraq. Also, they may get help from other nations, possibly Russia and/or China.

[NJCher]

1. I shudder

I shudder at that phrasing, "take Iran." As if other countries were ours, for the taking.


Cher

[Yavin4]

20. I've Changed My Post

Sorry for the poor phrasing.

[NJCher]

24. thank you

Cher

[punpirate]

2. We can take Iran without a draft...

... but we can't keep it. See Iraq for proof of that. Air power isn't the same as staying power.

Colonialism takes heavy doses of manpower and inducing fear in the populace.

[DenverDem]

3. We can't even take out Iraq.

We are getting our asses kicked there, so it would seem fairly improbable we can fulfill the necrocons megalomaniacle fantasy without drafting everyone over the age of 12 and under the age of 70.

[Nambe]

4. IMO, No. There are approximately 2B followers of Islahm.

Iraq is not the problem Islahm is fighting for but it will not let the US or Israel over-run any of their countries, especialy Iraq. China would not let us have Vietnam and Islahm will not let us have Iraq.

[Ms. Clio]

9. Why do you spell "Islam" as "Islahm?"

And "Islam" is not a nation, nor is it a monolithic entity?

Isn't that like saying "Christianity" would not let us have Rome?

[K-W]

11. The problem is, the islamic countries are not great friends.

We could take Iran(which is what I assume you meant by Iraq) and not cause the entire region to turn on us.

They arent united, some nations like Saudi Arabia are allied with us, we are a NUCLEAR power, we can destroy entire nations if we so choose, there seems little chance that any powerful nations would do anything to help them and would probably side with the US in case of world war.

No, it can be done without triggering a larger war, outside of terrorist networks which would assuredly get recruits.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

5. you've got to be kidding....

"...taking out Iran...?" WTF is happening here tonight?

Good gawd, man! You didn't look into Cheney's eyes, did you? Don't you know to ALWAYS USE A MIRROR?

[greblc]

12. LOL

[K-W]

6. Easily, that is the problem, just like Iraq.

We could very easily, with our air power, destroy them in a military conflict. But just like Iraq, then what? What happens when the enemy military fades into the streets and desert and you have a guerilla war on your hands. We can take Iran very easily. It would be the occupation that would require massive numbers of people.

[K-W]

17. also, Russia and China would never get involved.

I dont see any large nation stepping in our way. There would be too much for them to loose at this point.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScrewyRabbit]

7. What do you mean by take?

Could we destroy their army? Yes, our air power is very powerful. Could we occupy the country and maintain the peace? Look at Iraq and you have your answer.

[shraby]

10. Iran has air power plus lots more people

than Iraq. They may even have a nuke or two..and may even use them. Don't even THINK about Iran.

[K-W]

13. We would wipe the floor with Iran.

It doesnt seem like they have nukes, I dont think we would ever invade them if they did. But if they did its an entirely different story.

But without nukes, we win the war very very easily. It would not be that much more difficult than the first gulf war. Iraq at that time had an impressive military as well. The US would own the skies in a matter of days, and then it would be an exercise in bombing them into submission.

[Lerkfish]

32. I disagree....Iraq was supposed to be a "cakewalk" and look at it...

Iraq had a dismantled military, heavily cowed by sanctions and no fly zone enforcements for years, has a highly fractured ethnic population that are constantly at each other's throats....and we are still losing military personnel there daily....

Iran, on the other hand, is more cohesive ethnically, has a much larger and better equipped army, has tremendous resources and likely WMDs it has no problem using, has already rattled its sabre, and in doing so points out the US strategic blunder if we attack them -- all they have to do is hammer Iraq, which they don't like anyways, and destroy them and US at the same time.

It would be the most foolhardy thing this administration ever did, if they try to take Iran...and that's really saying something for an administration that excells at stupidity.

[K-W]

52. Ah, but you are talking about the occupation, not the invasion.

We have enough forces to defeat the Iranian army and invade the country. We dont have enough troops to occupy it and fight the gueralla war that would ensue.

I understand where you are coming from, and to say that Iran shouldnt be underestimated is fine, but your post makes it sound like Iran is much more powerful than it is.

If they had nukes its a different story, but I dont see us invading them if they have nukes.

It would be stupid and follhardy, but from a simply military standpoint, we could very easily defeat the Iranian defenses and invade thier country. We could get to 'mission accompished' quickly and occupy Tehran. It would, however then be a huge gaurilla war and an even larger terror war that would cause immense problems.

[LanternWaste]

63. A few points...

My opinions...

One of the fundamental objects or war is to "deny the opposition the ability to wage war" (Carl von Clausewitz, On War, pg 608). In that sense, the invasion have not been successful. Clausewitz never said anything about occupation of an enemy capital being the requisite for victory (something our own war planners appear to have ignored...) :think:

Additionally, from a *strategic* military standpoint, there are too many interests preventing us from doing so. International trade embargo's would bring our already teetering economy to its knees and the flashpoints caused by the invasion coupled with the the already stagnated operations in Iraq, would strain, and finally prevent the required amount of manpower needed to achieve victory.

Occupation is part and parcel of invasion and cannot be taken as a separate entity. The German's realized that in Russia during the 1941 invasion when partisan activity began to wreak havoc on supply and logistics and steadily increased to the point where more than 37 divisions were sent into already "occupied" Russia-- and not as Occupation Forces, but as combat forces to engage in combat (Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, pg 331-332).

Yes, I think we could win a series of military engagements in Iran, but none would be decisive enough to "deny the opposition the ability to wage war". Let's not kid ourselves, we got our butt's handed to us on a platter in Viet-Nam, regardless of the whatever shifting strategy MacNamara was using at any one particular time.

End Result... After many years, and may deaths, Washington would probably try to bullshit us with another "Peace With Honor", Viet-Nam style slogan, pull our troops out and declare "Mission Accompomplished" (regardless of how untrue that statement may be...)

edited for clarity

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. No one's 'taking' Iran...

...there will, however, be some highly photogenic air strikes just before the election, to rally the faithful to the banner of America's Popular Wartime President^tm.

You want the 'war' polling bounce without the cost in lives or treasure -- that much they've learned from Iraq.

[K-W]

14. Air strikes on Iran would in fact be taking Iran.

Iran would more than certainly see this as an act of war.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

26. Why do people,

mainly conservatives, love going to war so much? I don't get it.

[Lerkfish]

33. those who cannot create, destroy out of spite...

ever see the kid at a daycare that waits until the other kid builds a beautiful tower, and then comes over and wrecks it? He didn't build it, but he wants to wreck it.

republicans are the anti-builders, the destroyers of stability, the hackers of innocents. Its the closest they come to religious fervor/orgasm at the same time to label something as evil and then blow it up.

of course, they never consider themselves evil for blowing them up.....


sick fucks, all of em

[billyskank]

50. You're right that to create is better than to destroy,

and maintenance is better than both. To destroy is ignorance, to create is passion, and to maintain what you already have is goodness.

[Strelnikov_]

15. We Can't 'Take Iran' Even With A Draft

Where are we going to get the equipment to equip a draftee army? We are having a hard enough time keeping the military supplied with equipment now.

[mr_du04]

16. Don't worry

President Kerry will set things right.

[TahitiNut]

18. Iran's military is 6 times larger than Iraq's was.

Iran hasn't undergone a decade of "weapons inspections" either.

A draft wouldn't be the half of it.

[K-W]

19. First Iraq war is a much more valid comparison.

And that wasnt exactly a struggle either.

[Crachet2004]

21. Lotta mountains in Iran...no warlords to buy off, like Afghanistan.

They are an ancient, proud people; and they will fight. In a pitched battle, with our airpower, toe-to-toe, they would lose...which is why they will probably disband into about 1,000 man commandos, and make our troops life a living hell. If they are smart. And I give them credit for being smart.

And they would get a lot of help, from all over the world. Attacking Iran is just so completely beyond the pale of civilized behavior, that the US will lose any respect and trust we may still enjoy from the rest of the world...and they will do all they can for Iran.

And Iran would probably burn their airpower, missiles, and any nukes they may have on Israel-use them or lose them. Israel would enter the war on our side, which is what Iran would want, and the rest will be called WW3. The other Islamic nations will have to fight, or face popular revolution.

And yeah, it will take a gale force draft...not just a little, tiny one.

Life as all of us have known it would definitely change, mostly for the worst.

[K-W]

23. I dont think it would cause WW3

You are forgetting the magic word. Nuclear.

We would wrap an Iran invasion or attack in a cloak of policiing terrorism and wmd's. Who is going to mess with the United States? What country is going to stand up and attack us? We have an unprecedented dominance of the world right now. Our sphere of influence embraces the entire globe.

There is a point where we would trigger WW3, invading Iran wouldnt be it.

[leesa]

37. Yeah, Duh. We could "win it" by detonating nuclear weapons, poisoning

planet in the process. Man you are one out-of-touch puppy.

[K-W]

54. what is your specific criticism of my post?

I dont understand your reply.

[Crachet2004]

39. I think WW3 based admittedly on a key assumption: That Iran,

And certain other Islamic nations already have nuclear weapons. I could be wrong, but if I am not, once the nukes start flying in that part of the world, it is hard to say what might happen. Most likely, it would at least be the death of NATO.

The investigation of the Pakistani, Kahn, uncovered what amounted to a "nuclear Walmart", for nuclear components. Also, with the demise of the former Soviet Union...well, Kazahkstan even had nuclear missle bases, and many Arab nations have had plenty of oil cash for a long time now. Saudi Arabia, for example, might have anything. Who knows?

But I do know the feeling in the Islamic world against Israel; and in much of the world against the US. I think that a physical invasion of Iran, would be the straw that broke the camel's back. I think the Western Europeans and Russians have indicated limits to their support of, and willingness to tolerate our unilateral actions.

And there are a lot of religious nuts, not just in this country, who thirst for Armageddon...which to me, is WW3 by another name.

[K-W]

56. Well, of course, but I dont think they have nukes yet.

Look at how the international community is treating them. Heck look at the Iraq war. Would we have invaded the neighbor of a hostile nuclear power? The world doesnt seem to be treating them like they have the bomb, and the odds that they would have one and the world wouldnt know are remarkably slim.

[greblc]

22. Yes, because

we haven't the troop strength to maintain the war in Iraq. We are drawing on Reservist and Reserve Elements. We are also sending Marines (I don't know about Army) into Iraq for Second Tours. I think Bush in a second Term will push for a Draft. There is no other way to continue the war in Iraq. He manipulated Congress and the Senate to get his war. It 's not a stretch to think he could manipulate them again to Start a Draft .

Unfortunately Kerry will have to visit some of these same issues.

Kerry may however have more success in swaying the UN and Europe to help.

[radar]

25. A draft wouldn't be the only thing needed

I'm no military expert, but going to war with Iran doesn't seem likely without some sort of military draft.
Iran doesn't have a huge military, but they can fight back unlike Iraq.
Also, they may get help from other nations, possibly Russia and/or China.
Yes, we would need a lot of live bodies for that adventure.
But, I believe, not only a draft, but an increase in military manufacturing.
We're scraping the bottom of the barrel to supply the soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan.

EXAMPLES....

Shortage of bullets plagues U.S. military
Forces ramping up domestic production, buying ammo overseas
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/9232104.htm

U.S. Facing Alarming Ammunition Shortfalls
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=753

Staff Sgt. Don Allen, a combat instructor, said his trainees watch demonstrations of the M203 grenade launcher,
the Squad Automatic Weapon and the .50-caliber machine gun, but not everyone gets to actually fire the weapons.
"It's financial," said Allen, a combat engineer who fought in Iraq last year with the 8th Marines.
"I wish I had the money for them to shoot actual rounds. When I went through this training in 1995,
we all shot every weapon."
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1093325900144970.xml

...And, I recall there was supposedly a shortage of missiles during the campaign against KOSOVO
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintCons.htm

http://www.cdi.org/weekly/1999/issue13.html

...a view of the "Lessons Learned" from the recent air war between NATO and Yugoslavia --Operation "Allied Force."
http://www.siri-us.com/backgrounders/Kosovo-Lessons_Learned.html


Plus, how many allies would support going against another country? I doubt England would want to
get in on this excursion. And where are the big bombers going to fly out of? Are the Stealth planes & B52s
going to be based in Iraq? What country would let us fly thru it's airspace to attack Iran?

Need I mention the spare parts all the planes would need? Oh yeah, and the fuel. You think gas prices are high now...

Hehe

[Strelnikov_]

28. Aww Come On, Your Killing My Buzz

It's a lot more fun throwing around terms like 'unprecedented dominance of the world' than facing reality.

Iraq has demonstrated that we do not have anything close to 'unprecedented dominance of the world'. If anything, considering that we spend as much on defense than the rest of the world combined, our military is highly overrated. Granted, we have a lot of assets that make a conventional assault on the U.S. mainland unthinkable, and give us the ability to project power when required, like Kosovo.

However, Iraq has shown that when it comes to occupying countries all of the money spent on our military does not bring success.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Yep

We need the draft now just to maintain our 14 perm military bases in Iraq, and Afghanistan is falling apart. Fast.

[AngryOldDem]

29. Draft is Coming Regardless

n/t

[Swamp Rat]

31. I think so too. They're sending my cousin back for a second tour.

I think it's really crazy to think we can defeat Iran, and expect Russia to stay out of it. Putin must have a big 3-D map on a giant table that shows the encroachment of US forces in the Balkans, around the Caspian and Black Seas, etc. The rest of the world is not going to let us continue invading oil rich countries.

The ME is one big cluster fuck thanks to Bush and prior Repub regimes.

[TheSuaveOne]

30. Simple answer...

...no...la

[leesa]

38. Suave argument. Duh.

Get your fatigues on.

[TheSuaveOne]

42. Thanks...

...but I already wore them proudly 4 years active duty and 8 in the Air Force Reserves. I have done my time in the service. To my knowledge, there aren't many in the military that want a draft anyway. The men and women who are currently serving, do not want people who don't want to be there in the first place, guarding their back.

The military is currently a volunteer force, I don't see raising tensions in Iran or anywhere else in the world as reason enough to restart the draft...la

[Fleshdancer]

40. With the amount of strain put on National Reservists already....

I don't see how we could possibly have enough troops for a 3rd war. The administration likes to gloss over the subject of the draft and whether we have enough troops, but when you have to stop soldiers from retiring, pull them out of retirement, or put this sort of strain on Reservists, then there's obviously something not right here.

Besides, they talk about the number of people we have in the US military, but they fail to point out that not everyone in the military are used for combat. I can't remember the ratio, but isn't it safe to say that for every combat soldier, there are 3-5 people used for support?

[greekspeak]

41. A Draft and some allies stupid enough to go along with us

And I do not mean El Salvador and Namibia or such countries. There would have to be a REAL "coalition of the willing." I do not see that happening. If you think there were problems with getting other countries to go along with the Oil War of 2003, Oil War II would earn this country even MORE bad faith. But they have oil in Iran, too, so IdiotBoy can kill two birds with one stone: get the oil and a war bounce. Then 15 years from now, after Americans are still dying one after another and Shrub is long forgotten and JEB has served out his terms, they will try to blame it on the democrats.

The real reason we would need to have a draft is that we would be starting WWIII. Face it. And we might be defending our own shores none too soon if that is a case.

[Tight_rope]

43. Hell yeah...but no sane person will go! n/t

[jayfish]

44. Everyone Who Thinks That Iran Would Be Anything Like GWI Or GWII Is In...

for a rude awakening. They are buying up modern Russian equipment (especially AA) like kids in a candy store. Russia's new stuff is nothing to be sneezed at. For example the T-90 is one bad MBT and includes it's own point defense system against air threats. They also have a rather large SSM inventory and they build their own. It would be a blood bath for both sides and definitely require a draft.

http://www.rusarm.ru/video/video.htm
http://english1.people.com.cn/english/200012/27/eng20001227_58950.html
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/oct_2001/iran_russia__military_11001.htm
http://freemasonrywatch.org/comrades.html

Jay

EDITED FOR SPELLING

[HamdenRice]

45. Please folks, when you talk about war ...

Could you keep in mind the cliche that war is the continuation of politics by other means?

Tell us what you think would be the point be of going to war with Iran, and then we can tell you whether the US can "win" it or not. Every war has a political purpose -- like expelling Sadam's regime from the oil fields of Kuwait or preventing the southern states from breaking up the Union or (caugh, caugh, harrumph) creating a model, pro-western middle eastern regime that is friendly to Israel, that is free of WMDs, and that provides the US with a secure source of petroleum as a counter balance to an unstable Saudi Arabia and control over petroleum reserves for a future competition with China.

Obviously, no matter how easy it may have been to defeat the Iraqi armed forces, the US cannot win the current Iraqi war -- if by winning you mean achieving the above listed political goals of the war.

What would be the point of war with Iran? If it is destroying the ability of Iran to make "nukuelar" weapons, we don't need a war for that -- a couple of bombing raids will do that, as Israel proved when it bombed Iraqi reactors. But the results would probably be vastly increased support by Iran of anti-US guerillas in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

If the purpose of an Iran war would be to replace the current regime with a pro-US regime, then no, it is absolutely not possible for the US to win a war with Iran with or without a draft.

[K-W]

57. There is a difference between entering a war and winning the war.

We have enough forces without a draft to enter that war, we wouldnt have enough to win without a draft or international cooperation.

[MisterP]

65. another four-letter word: PNAC

on top of Thatcherite domination of developing nations via globalization, PNAC envisions a world hegemony with bases around the world and dominance over the Middle East.
If a nation won't go along--not like Saudi Arabia or Israel--it will be weakened by the military so as not to be a direct threat, and maybe with a puppet regime to help liquidate national resources. And if all this promotes another 9-11, so much the better for PNAC--they have another "new Pearl Harbor," just like the first one they wished for!

[Vladimir]

46. Neither Russia nor China will go near this

Russia is tied up enough in Chechnya and China knows better - it will be the top dog economically soon enough, and has no need of a war with the USA.

The USA could obliterate Iran, but it could never occupy it succesfully IMO, draft or no draft.

on edit: Just as a clarification, I find a war between the US and Iran extremely unlikely in the next 6-8 months.

[radar]

47. Also, I imagine

the Shia population in Iraq would not be too happy. Falluja & Najaf on a larger scale possibly.

...And what would Syria do? Wait for it's turn to be bombed, or help their neighbor in some form?

Target Iran - Air Strikes
One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian weapons of mass destruction and missile facilities.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm


"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
President Bush to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen June 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

[DrWeird]

49. Oh, I don't know. I could see China getting involved.

...because I doubt North Korea would just sit around and watch the second of three "axis of evil" nations get invaded.

[Vladimir]

51. So what do you think China would do? n/t

[DrWeird]

53. During a total war between N. Korea and US?

which would quite likely involve nuclear weapons?

Oh, I don't know. There's a large US fleet of warships just off China that are sitting ducks.

[Vladimir]

55. But why would NK attack?

they have the nuke, they know that if they use it they are getting obliterated, but they also know that its a very powerful deterrent against the US attacking them.

If anything I think China would be likely to take the US side in a war with NK - or it could preemptively invade NK to prevent a nuclear conflict ever occuring. I just don't see China as either profiting from a war with the US right now, or caring enough about NK not to take them out if they threaten China's broader interests.

[DrWeird]

60. Preemptive attack.

The US has invaded Iraq. The hypothetical what-if in this thread is an attack on Iran. Thus, N. Korea would be next on the list, so they can either wait to be taken out one by one or attack when our pants are down. As for nukes, I was more alluding to the possibility of the US using nukes to prevent being overrun by the overwhelming numbers of N. Korean troops.

How would China profit from a war with the US, as a country? They wouldn't. Neither would the US profit from a war with Iraq or Iran. But when was the last time one country invaded another for the better good of the first?

[Vladimir]

61. Fair points

I see where you are coming from now. If the US used nukes first, well the Chinese would certainly be pissed. One has to wonder... no, they are all easily stupid enough. I still think its unlikely though.

[K-W]

59. China and Russia wouldnt do anything.

They are both very tied up with domestic issues. Russia still has problems with chechnya and china has to worry about North Korea. They are also very tied to the US economically. They are in no position to stand up and turn on the US, nor do I think they would even want to.

[LanternWaste]

64. On the other hand...

Yet on the other, we are economically tied to China and, all other things being equal, would not jeopardize our largest trading partner...

[kayell]

48. Bush* could *start* a war without a draft, and I wouldn't be surprised

If he tries to heat things up so much before Nov, that even if he loses he could still hand Kerry a war as a done deal by inauguration day.

Once a war was on, a draft would be inevitable. Even more inevitable is that we would, after many long, hard, blood soaked years, lose miserably.

[RivetJoint]

58. How many troops do we have in Iraq?

~140,000

How many do we have in the active duty military?

~ 1.3 million

Answer = no.

[Yavin4]

62. Most of the Active Duty Military Personnel

are back office support personnel. Are we gonna send the Pentagon's network help desk guys to fight in Iran?

[NickB79]

66. What a grossly simplistic view of our military power

Yes, we currently have 140,000 troops in Iraq. What you forget to consider is that many of the original troops that participated in the invasion were rotated out and new ones sent in their place. The military does not like to maintain troops in combat situations for more than one year, as it crushes morale to be away from your family for so long a time. Those troops that took place in the initial invasion need time to recover before they can be used again in another combat mission. So, that means we've effectively cycled through 200,000-250,000 troops in the 1 1/2 yrs since the invasion, not 140,000.

Secondly, the current 140,000 troops in Iraq are barely maintaining control of the country, having practically given up patrolling large areas of Baghdad (Sadr City) and Fallujah, along with the stalemate that occurred in Najaf. Recall that before the war several top generals stated they felt we needed 250,000 troops in-country at all times to maintain order. This has proven to be quite true.

So, how many troops would we need to simply maintain control of the Iranian population? With Iran's population being ~2.5X as large as Iraq's, I would wager a minimum of 300,000-500,000 per year. I would lean more towards the upper limit due to the fact that the Iran's terrain is much more suited to guerrilla warfare, and how well equipped their troops are compared to those we faced in Iraq. And don't forget the long supply lines you'd have to protect from being ambushed (even easier to destroy in mountainous Iran than in flat Iraq). Then, after one year in-country, we need another 300,000+ troops to rotate in to replace those who were there for the past year. That means a MINIMUM of 600,000 troops over the course of 2 yrs in Iran, plus the 100,000-200,000 needed to rotate into Iraq during the same time period.

We'd be using over 2/3 of our military forces to control Iraq and Iran alone. Would we withdraw troops from Europe? From South Korea? Send even more National Guard units to the Middle East instead of having them helping with clean-up of forest fires and hurricanes? Take Navy and Air Force crewmen and turn them into ground troops? How many tours of duty do you want our soldiers to endure, as they are jerked around from one hotspot to another with only a few months rest in-between? How much do you want to bet military recruitment will PLUMMET in the years we are occupying those countries? How many troops will decide not to re-enlist once the conflicts are over?

We could probably successfully invade Iran, but doing so would cripple our military for many years to come. Do you want to sacrifice our nation's military to this goal?