Mlitary and Diplomatic Report: US Strikes on Iran Would Risk Major War

[BigRedChief]

http://gma.yahoo.com/report-us-strik...023148627.html

You posters on here wanting to attack Iran had better consider the consequenses of military action. I'm on record as believing that Iran cant be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But we really, really, really need think and consider the ramifications of a military strike.

Some excerpts:

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran's most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic's pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

The report compiled by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers is to be publicly released Thursday. It says achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran's nuclear program would require a military operation — including a land occupation — more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Planners and pundits ought to consider that the riots and unrest following a Web entry about an obscure film are probably a fraction of what could happen following a strike — by the Israelis or U.S. — on Iran," retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, an endorser of the Iran report and a former operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview.

The report said the Obama administration's stated objective — shared by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb is unlikely to be achieved through military force if action is limited to a combination of airstrikes, cyberattacks, covert operations and special operations strikes.

It says an extensive U.S. military assault could delay for up to four years Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It also could disrupt Iranian government control, deplete its treasury and raise internal tensions.
"We do not believe it would lead to regime change, regime collapse or capitulation," it said, adding that such an attack would increase Iran's motivation to build a bomb, in part because the Iranian leadership would see building a bomb as a way to inhibit future U.S. attacks "and redress the humiliation of being attacked."

A more ambitious military campaign designed to oust the Iranian regime of hardline clerics or force an undermining of Iran's influence in the Mideast would require the U.S. to occupy part or all of the country, the report said.

"Given Iran's large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined," the report said.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by alnorth

well yeah, I guess genocide and killing tens of millions is another option.

That number seems high.


Even Little Boy killed under 200,000 Japanese.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Absolutely not.

Presuming Iran wants the bomb (I would too if I ran Iran, just so I would not be threatened with an attack), and if sanctions do nothing to dissuade them, then we simply are incapable of preventing Iran from getting a nuke without a full-blown land invasion and national occupation lasting for at least well over a decade.

That would be an extremely foolish plan, aside from the fact that we simply can not afford it.

Not true. At a minimum, we can set them back for years without full blown land invasion. Even BRC's biased report admitted that much.

Originally Posted by alnorth

I hate to break it to you but there was never, ever any chance of success in the way you envision it. (not just military, but a cultural success where Iraq becomes this thriving happy westernized democratic ally)

That "blood and treasure" was wasted as soon as Bush and co. decided to attack Iraq for really no good reason whatsoever.

LOL You believed Harry Reid when he said the war was lost, didn't you?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are living in some dream world if you thought Iraq would ever be a ally of the USA.

I'm sure that's what Barack "Let's get outta here" Obama would like you to believe.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm sure that's what Barack "Let's get outta here" Obama would like you to believe.

That's strange you say that. That timeline was the same timeline president Bush agreed to in dec 08'.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by billay

That's strange you say that. That timeline was the same timeline president Bush agreed to in dec 08'.

No No NO Obama told us the day he Became president we would bring all of the troops home, he even stated we could take it to the bank.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by billay

That's strange you say that. That timeline was the same timeline president Bush agreed to in dec 08'.

That was a paper agreement. I'm talking about the real thing. The Bush administration made it abundantly clear that they would modify their troop deployment plans to fit the situation on the ground.

[Lightrise]

I have long agreed with Pat Buchanan on this. No war even if they get nukes.

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

I have long agreed with Pat Buchanan on this. No war even if they get nukes.

The idea that Iran should be allowed to go nuclear and that this represents no danger or problem is, I believe, the true position of the Obama administration.

Perhaps he will tell us when he has more flexibility after the election.

[mlyonsd]

Does anyone really think Obama would ever call for strikes on Iran?

Too much political risk before or after the elections. I find the premise laughable.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

"You can't kill intellectual power," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report.

You can if all the intellectuals are dead...

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You should read Pat Buchanan on what Obama actually meant by that.

I know what he meant by that.

Just like when he said that "now is not the time for profits".

Words mean things.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yeah, they're called traditional conservatives. Ya' know the Old Right.

Pat certainly doesn't call for disengagement from the world, like you do.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

Does anyone really think Obama would ever call for strikes on Iran?

Too much political risk before or after the elections. I find the premise laughable.

you are wrong. He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

you are wrong. He has proven many times over and over to green light potentially unpopular nissions if the military tells him its neccsary for our defense.

Yeah whatever.