Iran's new strategy to counter U.S. military strike.

[radiosilence]

Guarantee? This is war. There is no such thing as a guarantee. We do the risk assessments, impliment controls and go for it. If you are lucky things will MOSTLY GO AS PLANNED.

This is what Sam Gardiner said after conducting war games against Iran "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." I am pretty sure you are familar with Sam Gardiner's background at the National War College.

Your statements imply that unless everything is perfect, then it's best not to act

Act when you have a high probability of success or we may have another Iraq.

As to the issue of other options. We have been pursuing other options against Iran since 1979. We are still pursuing other options today. But this is a discussion of war and planning for war. The latter occurs concurrently with the other options as a contigency.

North Korea was convinced of giving up their nukes.

Regime change does not require local support.

It does if you want the new regime to stay in power and stabilized the country.

I don't know what intelligence people you are refering to but I have heard all kinds of prefessional opinions on Iran.

Care to share them?

 

[DarthAmerica]

This is what Sam Gardiner said after conducting war games against Iran "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." I am pretty sure you are familar with Sam Gardiner's background at the National War College.

There is always a military solution if you properly define the problem(see below). The problem with that is people are largely unfamiliar with the difference between private and public reasons for going or not going to war. We haven't faced an opponent yet where there wasn't a military solution. Quite frankly, Iran is a trivial matter compared to some other threats.

Act when you have a high probability of success or we may have another Iraq.

Have another Iraq? That suggest a misunderstanding of whats going on in Iraq. Iraq has not been a military failure. Its actually an unprecidented success thus far but it is not over. I fully understand that public perceptions do not support that reality. But thats the fault of the administration for not properly articulating the nature of the type of war being faught.

Unfortunately the nature of war doesn't always allow for acting when risk are low.

North Korea was convinced of giving up their nukes.

North Korea is geographically Isolated and it doesn't pose much of a threat except to South Korea. It's a completely different problem fundamentally. Moreover, the Norks havent been convinced of anything. They are simply using traditional eastern methods to pursue their goals. Something they have grown quite good at.

It does if you want the new regime to stay in power and stabilized the country.

Why do we want that? The world is full of unstable regimes. You see this is the fundamental problem with OIF. It doesn't matter one bit what government takes over so long as they cannot threaten our national security interest. This is classic mission creep. Our goal is to prevent Iran from destabilizing the Middle East by upsetting the balance of power. That has been a key strategy of the United States for about 30 years.

Today that means destroying Irans nuclear weapons programs and conventional forces that are capable of threatening regional economic interest.

Care to share them?

Specifically no as that would be irresponsible. However, there are plenty of official unclassified and unofficial OSINT reports with various pros and cons that you can read for yourself if you have the time.


-DA

 

[radiosilence]

There is always a military solution if you properly define the problem(see below). The problem with that is people are largely unfamiliar with the difference between private and public reasons for going or not going to war. We haven't faced an opponent yet where there wasn't a military solution. Quite frankly, Iran is a trivial matter compared to some other threats.

Sure if you want to be a lunatic and nuke Iran or bomb the living hell out of them killing millions of civilians while doing that.

Have another Iraq? That suggest a misunderstanding of whats going on in Iraq. Iraq has not been a military failure. Its actually an unprecidented success thus far but it is not over. I fully understand that public perceptions do not support that reality. But thats the fault of the administration for not properly articulating the nature of the type of war being faught

Taking down Iraqi army was a success but everything went down hill from there after the insurgency began. Look at the facts comming out Iraq that should tell if the overall mission is success or a failure.

North Korea is geographically Isolated and it doesn't pose much of a threat except to South Korea. It's a completely different problem fundamentally.

Really, I guess firing a missile over Japan is not consider a threat to Japan .

Specifically no as that would be irresponsible.

I thought you would say that.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Sure if you want to be a lunatic and nuke Iran or bomb the living hell out of them killing millions of civilians while doing that.

Taking down Iraqi army was a success but everything went down hill from there after the insurgency began. Look at the facts comming out Iraq that should tell if the overall mission is success or a failure.

Really, I guess firing a missile over Japan is not consider a threat to Japan .

I thought you would say that.

OK, I sense a bit of emotion creeping into the discussion. I prefer things to remain objective. I did not say anything about killing anybody, you did. I said that there is always a military solution. But that solution requires a properly defined problem.

What facts out of Iraq are you looking at? Let me tell you, not much coming out of Iraq in the MSM is fact.

Nork Missile firings as annoying as they are pose a minimal threat to the global economy and do not demand the same kind of attention. You have to evaluate each threat separately on it's own merit.

I thought you would say that.

Of course. My intent was merely to inform you that opinions on the quality of intelligence sources varies widely. My own experience has been that intelligence capabilities are greatly underestimated or even understood outside of the establishment. This is by design more often than not.

-DA

 

[radiosilence]

OK, I sense a bit of emotion creeping into the discussion. I prefer things to remain objective. I did not say anything about killing anybody, you did. I said that there is always a military solution. But that solution requires a properly defined problem.

I should have been a little bit more clear. Wasn't calling you a lunatic, i was using it more in general terms.

What facts out of Iraq are you looking at? Let me tell you, not much coming out of Iraq in the MSM is fact.

The daily sectarian violence. IEDs, Car bombing, excutions, militia on militia fighting, mortar attacks etc. Is that unprecidented success ?

Nork Missile firings as annoying as they are pose a minimal threat to the global economy and do not demand the same kind of attention. You have to evaluate each threat separately on it's own merit.

Japan has the second largest economy in world and South Korea is the number twelve economy. North Korea is very much of a threat to them as it has proven with its missiles and other weapons. North Korea is exporting missile and recently reportedly exported nuclear material. They are exporting to anyone who is willing to pay. Some can argue that North korea was and is a bigger threat than Iran and yet they were given security guarantees and other goodies to give up their nukes.

 

[swerve]

...Nork Missile firings as annoying as they are pose a minimal threat to the global economy and do not demand the same kind of attention. You have to evaluate each threat separately on it's own merit.
...

-DA

N. Korean missile firings have the potential to disrupt shipping all round Japan & S. Korea, which would be hugely damaging to the global economy. Splatter chemical weapons around, & they do a lot more than disrupt shipping.

It's not just Japan & S. Korea. Take away Japanese & Korean inputs, & lots of Chinese screwdriver plants stop producing for lack of vital high-tech components. The motor of the world economy stalls . . .

Not exactly minimal.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I should have been a little bit more clear. Wasn't calling you a lunatic, i was using it more in general terms.

OK thanks. But there are situations where use of nuclear weapons against military and civilian infrastructure is appropriate. They are called counterforce and countervalue. I would personally avoid charaterizing the nature of these operations.

The daily sectarian violence. IEDs, Car bombing, excutions, militia on militia fighting, mortar attacks etc. Is that unprecidented success ?

There are dozens of placed around the world where these kinds of things happen. Iraq is not unique or particularly bad. The violence is limited to very small areas. The security situation here has improved quite considerably.

Japan has the second largest economy in world and South Korea is the number twelve economy. North Korea is very much of a threat to them as it has proven with its missiles and other weapons. North Korea is exporting missile and recently reportedly exported nuclear material. They are exporting to anyone who is willing to pay. Some can argue that North korea was and is a bigger threat than Iran and yet they were given security guarantees and other goodies to give up their nukes.

Anyone who would argue that North Korea is a greater or more immediate security concern than Iran does not in my opinion understand the significance of the Middle East compared the Korea. But then it should be obvious which one the USA considers more immediate.

-DA

 

[radiosilence]

But there are situations where use of nuclear weapons against military and civilian infrastructure is appropriate.

I will refer you back to Sam Gardiner's war game againsts Iran. I am sure nothing was off limits and yet he came to the conclusion that he did.

There are dozens of placed around the world where these kinds of things happen. Iraq is not unique or particularly bad.

On the scale of Iraq? where?

Anyone who would argue that North Korea is a greater or more immediate security concern than Iran does not in my opinion understand the significance of the Middle East compared the Korea.

See Swerve's post.

But then it should be obvious which one the USA considers more immediate

The judgement of the policy/decision makers are in question based on their track record. They might lauch Strikes against Iran but doesn't mean it the correct decision.

 

[merocaine]

There are dozens of placed around the world where these kinds of things happen

Name 2 dozen, or even name a dozen that has anything like Iraq's problems, lack of goverment, deaths squads, terrorists, mersenary armies, occuping troops, persistant insurgeny, regional fragmentation child mortality, crime ect. Even better, name one.

Iraq is not unique or particularly bad

Hey guess what Iraq is NUMBER 2 on the failed state index (yeah know it was really pushing for that top spot), I would say thats bad. In the last estimate the numbers of internally displaced is around 2 million, war realated deaths are approching 700 hundred thousand.
What planet are you on?

The security situation here has improved quite considerably.

When you say the security situation has "improved considerably here" it implies you are in Iraq, is that the case? So how do you judge that? By hanging out in the GZ watching the TV? and reading white house press releases?
To be honest I was quite optoistic on Iraq and the possiblites, but reading that little snipet was like going through the Looking Glass.

 

[Grand Danois]

war realated deaths are approching 700 hundred thousand.

That number seems to be from the Lancet article. A number that has so great uncertainty to it, that if conducted today, there is statistically a fair chance that numbers will be significantly less, even though more time has passed.

Not trying to hijack the thread and certainly not trying to belittle the fate of the Iraqi people. Just what I remember from reading the article when it was published.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I will refer you back to Sam Gardiner's war game againsts Iran. I am sure nothing was off limits and yet he came to the conclusion that he did.

If you are already "convinced" that Sam Gardiner is correct then we just have to agree to disagree. I'd say perhaps you are misinterpreting him or that our points of view and experiences differ very much. Iran has a military solution.

On the scale of Iraq? where?

First of all it would be far more accurate to say "On the Scale of Baghdad". Outside of the immediate Baghdad area Iraq is not very bad at all. Sure there are incidents elsewhere. But it is not very frequent or even particularly effective. I would say that you would find places like Somalia and Lebanon more violent. I am physically in Iraq BTW.

See Swerve's post.

I did and I disagree if it was meant to suggest that North Korea is a bigger threat.

The judgement of the policy/decision makers are in question based on their track record. They might lauch Strikes against Iran but doesn't mean it the correct decision.

What judgement? Do you realise how broad this statement is? I dont see where any other potential administration would have acted any differently.

-DA

 

[radiosilence]

If you are already "convinced" that Sam Gardiner is correct then we just have to agree to disagree.

I am more incline to go along with Sam Gardiner recommendation because he has conducted war games at the National War College and many other military institutions for more than two decades. The light-force strategy that General Tommy Franks used to take Baghdad in 2003 first surfaced in a war game Gardiner designed in the 1980s.

First of all it would be far more accurate to say "On the Scale of Baghdad". Outside of the immediate Baghdad area Iraq is not very bad at all. Sure there are incidents elsewhere. But it is not very frequent or even particularly effective. I would say that you would find places like Somalia and Lebanon more violent. I am physically in Iraq BTW.

The numbers of death comming out of Iraq is unmatched anywhere. Stay safe over there.

What judgement? Do you realise how broad this statement is? I dont see where any other potential administration would have acted any differently.

Looking at everything, the dead/wounded US soldiers, Iraqis, the distruction of the infastructure of Iraq, the Cost to US tax payers. Was it a good decision to invade?

 

[merocaine]

That number seems to be from the Lancet article. A number that has so great uncertainty to it, that if conducted today, there is statistically a fair chance that numbers will be significantly less, even though more time has passed.

Not trying to hijack the thread and certainly not trying to belittle the fate of the Iraqi people. Just what I remember from reading the article when it was published.

I am well aware of the uncertainies involved, but every study apart from the Iraq Body count, which insists on collaborating every death with the press ,military, hospitales ect( therefore it is the very minimum ) has come up with a plus 600,000 figure.
The most recent figures from a British polling company came up with a figure of 1.2 million dead.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

First of all it would be far more accurate to say "On the Scale of Baghdad"

Well why did'ent you say that in the first place.
Ah yes, Darth if your not more specific your points are going to be picked apart.
such as -

Outside of the immediate Baghdad area Iraq is not very bad at all. Sure there are incidents elsewhere. But it is not very frequent or even particularly effective

How about the south of the country? Its certainly not being run by the Iraqi goverment. Or Anabar which certainly is'ent.
Or effective? against who the US soldiers?
If you want to define Iraq solely on how many US troops are dieing and on no other count, then yes over the Last 3 months there has been an improvement.
If you take into account everything else there has been little change.

Your attempts to paint Iraq as "not unique" or "perticularly bad" ect are intellectully dishonest.

I am interested though, whats your job in the Green Zone?

 

[DarthAmerica]

I am more incline to go along with Sam Gardiner recommendation because he has conducted war games at the National War College and many other military institutions for more than two decades. The light-force strategy that General Tommy Franks used to take Baghdad in 2003 first surfaced in a war game Gardiner designed in the 1980s.

Well I still disagree. A military option always exist.

The numbers of death comming out of Iraq is unmatched anywhere. Stay safe over there.

Thank You. Unfortunately it is wrong to assume Iraq is even in the top ten in death rate. African nations are far worse. For example the CIA 2007 est is about ~6 people per 1000. Rwanda is ~15 per 1000. Somalia is 16.28 per 1000. The United States is actually higher than Iraq 8.26.

Source:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html

You see, we need to remain objective and unbiased by all the bad news. The facts are that Iraq isnt nearly as bad as people make it out to be. People who have mostly never stepped one foot over here.

Looking at everything, the dead/wounded US soldiers, Iraqis, the distruction of the infastructure of Iraq, the Cost to US tax payers. Was it a good decision to invade?

Yes it was. I'm glad I volunteered to come. Now that doesnt mean I think all has been perfect. CERTAINLY NOT! I just hope if we go into Iran it's done properly and with these lessons learned.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

How about the south of the country? Its certainly not being run by the Iraqi goverment. Or Anabar which certainly is'ent.
Or effective? against who the US soldiers?
If you want to define Iraq solely on how many US troops are dieing and on no other count, then yes over the Last 3 months there has been an improvement.
If you take into account everything else there has been little change.

Your attempts to paint Iraq as "not unique" or "perticularly bad" ect are intellectully dishonest.

I am interested though, whats your job in the Green Zone?

Wrong there has been a drastic change all around. To include local cooperation. I'm not painting Iraq as anything. I'm telling you what it is like in reality. Calling me dishonest is not necessary. I would be the first one to tell you if things were bad. Accurate reporting is the only way to achieve results. That and a clinically objective view.

EDIT: Forgot to add. Southern Iraq is indeed ran by the Iraqi Government. Iranian influence in the region is also being pushed out when found by locals. West Iraq is also much less violent.

-DA

 

[Grand Danois]

I am well aware of the uncertainies involved, but every study apart from the Iraq Body count, which insists on collaborating every death with the press ,military, hospitales ect( therefore it is the very minimum ) has come up with a plus 600,000 figure.
The most recent figures from a British polling company came up with a figure of 1.2 million dead.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

Every study? As far a the Lancet study is concerned, there are inherent uncertainties derived from the methodology. Actually, the Lancet approach is scientific in the sense that they apply sampling techniques, and statistical processing correctly. It is scientifically correct, however, the problem is that they are measuring the width of a needle with a classroom ruler.

Findings Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

What kan be discerned here?

1) The 95% CI interval is 392 979–942 636. That is huge and is a reflection of the sampling method.

2) IIRC the uncertainty of the pre war death rate is not built into the uncertainty of the excess death rate. The used 5.5 crude death rate yields approx 485000 deaths from natural causes in that period. A crude death rate og 6.5 yields approx 574000. Very sensitive.

Due to methodology, they run the "risk" of ending up with numbers that will contradict the previous "conservative" survey, if they conduct the survey in 2008.

Anyhow, the Lancet study discriminate between excess non-violent deaths (45%) and violent deaths (55%) - the survey you posted just count it as murdered (they didn't read the Lancet article!!!).

Also, giving a std dev as 2.5% on a survey of 1,499 samples suggest they have applied inappropriate stat processing of raw data (erroneuos application of formulae - they don't know how to deal with the numbers correctly). Compare with the Lancet study.

The Lancet study is as good as it gets under the circumstances. One should just be very careful and take the applied method under consideration - it is not strong enough to be used the way it has been done in the media.

 

[swerve]

I'd say the Lancet study has two weaknesses:

1. What you say - "measuring the width of a needle with a classroom ruler". You exaggerate, but that's just conversational mode. In principle, I think it's a valid criticism.

2. The risk of sampling error due to self-selection of interviewees. This is discussed in one of the critiques linked to by Iraq Body Count.

They're mutually reinforcing weaknesses. The results of the study are very sensitive to sampling error, because of 1), so if 2) applies, 1) will multiply its effects.

I think the methodology is probably as good as it can be in the circumstances, but that the circumstances are not good.

 

[funtz]

By the excellent logic of Iraq going around, it seems to me there is a civil war coming up in my country too.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...l_second_only_to_Iraq/articleshow/2312796.cms
And our neighbors Pakistan seem to be on a self destruct spiral too,
However I can assure you it is not so, it is a lot more complex than that, you have to understand given a choice most people will prefer peace
I can go on and on about my thoughts on Iraq, however this is an Iran thread.

If Iran decides that a conflict is imminent, and decides an attack on US military in Middle East is the only way to do any damage before its Air Force, Army and navy are made ineffective for a conventional war.

I am not saying they will or that any military action will happen, it’s just a discussion.

What capabilities does Iran possess?

Some posts back Kato described the type, range, warhead, platform of Iranians Anti ship cruise missiles, from that it is apparent that Iran will not be able to do any significant damage to any USN carrier group, and furthermore they lack the ability of finding out where the carrier group is operating.

They may perhaps decide for a Suicidal air assault on prominant US military bases in Middle East.

What targets will be preferred (for example air defense, military personnel, combat aircrafts equipments)?

What is the motivation level of Iranian Pilots?

Do they have the training and infrastructure to perform such huge simultaneous strikes?

They have:
24 Mig 27, 32 Sukhoi Su-24, F-14 Tomcat(numbers?), 24 Mirage F1, 25 Chengdu J-7, F-4 Phantom II (numbers?), 75 Mig 29, F-5 (numbers?), 18 Shenyang J-6, SU- 25 (numbers?), 10 Boeing 707 refueling tanker.
All the sources state different numbers, so exact numbers are not available, any reliable source available? How many will be operating at a given time?

What is the air to surface munitions inventory (type of guidance, range, damage radius)?

 

[Grand Danois]

I'd say the Lancet study has two weaknesses:

1. What you say - "measuring the width of a needle with a classroom ruler". You exaggerate, but that's just conversational mode. In principle, I think it's a valid criticism.

2. The risk of sampling error due to self-selection of interviewees. This is discussed in one of the critiques linked to by Iraq Body Count.

They're mutually reinforcing weaknesses. The results of the study are very sensitive to sampling error, because of 1), so if 2) applies, 1) will multiply its effects.

I think the methodology is probably as good as it can be in the circumstances, but that the circumstances are not good.

I focused the hypothesis, that if you conduct a similar survey in a years time, with all else being equal including (2.), but independent from the 2006 survey, then one might end up with a number inconsistent with the 2006 survey. I wouldn't want to end up in a discussion on the minutae of possible bias in the sampling, so let it be.

But yes, conversational mode re the needle/ruler.

 

[kato]

They may perhaps decide for a Suicidal air assault on prominant US military bases in Middle East.

In an all-out war:
I'd actually expect the IRIAF to focus on defensive operations. And ballistic missile strikes against US military bases, i.e. an attempted repeat of their response to the Scud War of 1988 against e.g. Baghdad, and similar, more singular strikes against say Al Manamah.
The Army would be similarly in a defensive role. Build a solid defense line with mobile anti-air assets in the mountains just east of the border, like in the Iran-Iraq war.
Navy would be stuck with the "hard part".

When discussing equipment numbers, also don't forget the split between "regular army" and Republican Guards btw. The Su-24 and Su-25, for example, afaik are all in the hands of the IRCG.