Posts Tagged ‘American military’

Iran – Elections Aren’t the Issue

June 21, 2009

Fuck the big media circus surrounding the painfully obvious fraudulent Iranian elections – Sure, the Iranians have never taken to the streets to his degree in direct opposition of the ayatollah (and I will not capitalize that), but it doesn’t matter what the outcome is unless it keeps the Iranian government from developing nukes.

Either leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir-Hossein Mousavi, both will pursue the weapons program which, of course, they claim is for civilian purposes (Didn’t Saddam say the same thing before the Israelis wrecked his shit [Osiraq] in 1981?).

Bottom line: The United States of America and Israel, especially, have been developing war plans against Iran for years now, and this election bullshit simply clarifies the need for it, and intensifies it.

Because now that it is clear that  Ahmadinejad will remain the president, the same man who believes the apocalypse will be in 2012 (Rather convenient, seeing as he’ll now be in office come 2012) and who, along with the ayatollah, has called publicly for the destruction of Israel and has been ominously pushing for nuclear capablility since he first came into office, will continue faster than ever to establish Iran as a nuclear state.

And Mousavi would do the same, but would take a softer public face to the acceleration of the program, and likewise would make it more difficult for the Persians to get hit.

The unnamed man says: “Darken the sky with airplanes – bomb them ’till they crack.”

The illegitimacy of the post-election Iranian government will make a strike against them much easier to pull off – it’s a lot easier hitting a dictatorship than a quasi democracy (With their un-elected supreme leader the ayatollah and all that). And speaking of which, we thought pre-election that we were dealing with a quasi democracy – as it turns out, we’re now dealing with a paper quasi democracy (Aka: Dictatorship).

It goes without saying that if we don’t hit Iran before they get nukes, Israel will, regardless of what we (The Americans) say, for they view a nuclear Iran as an “existential threat” to their very existence.

And we all know the Israeli IDF slogan, right?

“Never again.”

Now, as for planning an actual attack, I would need to have intelligence resources available to me that only the top echelons of the government and military have, so I cannot, in this report, lay out the specifics for any strike.

I can, however, lay out a basic, textbook framework:

The Iranians learned from Iraq in 1981 that positioning a nuclear facility in one location is a bad idea (The Israelis launched one wave of aircraft and destroyed it), so to counter that, they’ve spread their facilities across the country, many underground.

Alright, so that rules out a swift, one-time strike. Which means any attack against Iran in order to keep it from gaining status as a nuclear power will require limited war.

First, create a breach in their air defenses at the border and get in the stealth bombers to hit preliminary targets before the main bomber/fighter wave comes through (In the First Gulf War, several groups of Apache gunships created a hole for the initial barrage of warplanes to get through into Iraq), and this is done by simply targeting a series of inter-connected radar/air defense positions along a stretch of the Iranian border. Once the hole is made, pour in the planes of war.

As stated above, the nuclear sites are situated everywhere, so a single strike wouldn’t be enough – the Iranians would know what was up rather quickly and would try to get their own air force off the ground.

Solution: First step is to establish air supremacy by destroying not only air defense systems and radar installations, but also the Iranian air force – preferably while it’s still on the ground (reminiscent of Israel doing just that to the Egyptian air force in their opening salvo in the Six Day War).

Once air supremacy is established, start hitting the nuclear facilities.

And what’s Iran going to do? Send colulmns of tanks and troops into Iraq to take on American forces? We’d bomb them on their way across the border and destroy any remnants with out vastly superior military.

The Iranians will undoubtedly unleash their various proxies across the Middle East in the event of such a strike against their country. Hezbollah, Hamas, various Shiite militias in Iraq, will certainly rise up in full force to create as much havoc and confusion as they can – let them, and see what happens.

Would Russia come to Irans defense? Would Russia really risk nuclear war over Iran? After all, we’re not going for regime change here, nor would we put troops on Persian soil (Although the CIA has supposedly escalated their operations in Iran since the fall of Afghanistan), we’d simply be destroying their air capabilities and nuclear program: The latter of which cannot be achieved without first neutralizing the prior.

Russia can go fuck herself – it’s essentially a third-class state that just so happens to maintain a vast and capable nuclear arsenal. So unless they want to take us on conventionally (Surely they’re smart enough to avoid that), then their only alternative is nuclear war.

I don’t think they’d do it.

And I cannot stress enough that the success of any strike against Iran, or any nation for that matter, comes down to who is put in charge of planning and execution. If they know the score, if their minds are completely wrapped around all the dynamics confronting them in such an engagement, then the plan should be a success – especially when dealing with a military inferior to our own.

Norman Schwarzkopf and his team in the First Gulf War knew the score, and they wrecked the fourth largest military in the world – a military, I might add, that had been hardened after nearly a decade of combat against neighboring Iran.

Fuck the government of Iran (Not the people; the vast majority are young and pro-American … I wonder if they would still hold the same sentiment after we put their government in its place by destroying its air force and any chance it may have at obtaining nuclear weapons?).

A successful strike against Iran would bring great relief not only to the U.S., Europe and Israel, but also to the Sunni bloc of nations in the Middle East who are freaked out over Iran’s attempts at regional hegemony.

Iran has an official “Death to America day” … Give them a month of perpetual American aerial bombardment and I think they’ll keep their mouths shut, and their fake muscles hidden in white billowing blouses.

 

juice

Taliban Lack the Will

April 30, 2009

Bottom line: The Taliban lack the will to carry out an effective and sustained close-quarters guerilla campaign against U.S., and even NATO, forces.

They certainly are capable: They have the manpower, the munitions and the TERRAIN to do so.

Sure, they’ll hit Afghan police-manned checkpoints and kill them, or send a suicide bomber into a throng of civilians, or detonate an IED as a NATO convey passes, but these are all peripheral aspects of an asymmetrical war.

In order to be viable, these things must be nitched together within the framework of an overall, comprehensive asymmetrical approach that uses an effective engage and displace policy for their front-line fighters as its crux.

Terrain-features of the Afghan-Pakistan border make up a PARADISE for ambushing operations; and through this terrain U.S. forces patrol daily, and yet, until recently (As outlined below), rarely, if ever, come into any kind of close-quarter ambush combat scenario.

Talibani code of guerilla fighting seems to be to engage American outposts with indirect fire and then flee; just like the tactics favored by their ancestors in ancient times (One reason why the soldiers of the Persian Empire were so disturbed when fighting the Greeks; the Greeks fought face-to-face, whereas the Persians, with their Arab contingents, preferred fighting from a distance via arrows and closing only when a victory seemed certain).

The Taliban as of late, and in very isolated incidents, have been ambushing NATO/U.S. patrols (Not many, but they are starting to walk their talk, or at least trying to give that impression).

One confirmed American patrol was caught in an interesting revenge ambush, which I related in a recent post (Came a week after the same unit devastated a Taliban contingent via setting up their own ambush).

A few others confirmed against NATO forces operating with the Afghan Army.

The Talibani ambushes failed.

The encounters were relatively brief and left the Taliban fleeing amidst the bodies of their fallen comrades, while Coalition/Afghan forces sustained little to no casualties.

But the Taliban are least beginning to actually engage in close-quarters combat again.

When first invaded they tried a somewhat conventional approach, in the form of pitched battles in open areas, in which they were obviously wrecked by overwhelming U.S. military prowess.

After that they withdrew to the mountain areas and would ambush U.S. patrols here and there, but the high level of casualties they would sustain, as compared to the small number on behalf of U.S. and Coalition forces, caused them to back away from the face-to-face ambush scenarios and move more toward the lobbing-mortars-from-a-mile-or-two-away-and-then-fleeing tactic.

More of these real ambushes, and by “real” I mean close-quarters, will come with the influx of U.S. combat troops into the South and Eastern portions of Afghanistan this summer, and especially once said forces begin encroaching upon their opium fields.

<For a related post, see “Cowardice of the Enemy”>

juice

Revenge Against American Ambush

April 29, 2009
UNDER ATTACK Specialist Robert Soto ran for cover last week as his platoon was ambushed in Afghanistan. Across the river, two comrades crouched behind a rock.

UNDER ATTACK Specialist Robert Soto ran for cover last week as his platoon was ambushed in Afghanistan. Across the river, two comrades crouched behind a rock.

At the bottom of one of my reports, “Cowardice of the Enemy,” I included a New York Times article that covered a devastating ambush against Taliban fighters by U.S. soldiers of the Second Platoon, Company B, of the First Battalion, 26th Infantry.

About a week after their triumph, the same platoon was ambushed in an apparent revenge attack (Given the Taliban’s reluctance to engage American forces, even in ambush).

The article is an excellent read, and gives a thorough blow-by-blow report of the Taliban’s revenge ambush, which, while claiming the life of one American, fell drastically short of what they were hoping for.

Very intense article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/asia/20ambush.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

juice

Response to Mr. Head in Stars

April 28, 2009

The following is my response to Masood Sharif Khan Khattak’s report, the link to which is:

 http://pakistanpal.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/faltering-us-strategy-pii/

My response:

Alright;

“Replacing military activity with developmental activity.”

Bullshit.

The two go hand in hand. First route the Islamo-Fascists that are the core of the Taliban, and then civilian workers move in and create viable institutions.

Peace deals with the Taliban? Are you reading about the SWAT Peace Accord?
You cannot deal with the Taliban, because they are strongarms.

In the accord, the Taliban agreed to disarm, and to cease all violent/military activities, and in return the Pakistani government would allow them to implement their variant of Sharia law in SWAT and neighboring districts. That was the core of the agreement.

What happened?

Within days, hundreds of heavily armed Taliban marched into Buner, raided civilian-based instituations, routed government officials and occupied their houses.

Yes, they listen to peace deals.

As far as the U.S. withdrawing after said “peace deals” are in place, this is completely absurd.

This is the whole reason why the ISI continues to support the Taliban, because they fear another abandonment by the United States similiar to that which occured when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan.

Because of this, the ISI uses certain elements of the Taliban, along with other non-state militant entities, as a hedge against both India in Kashmir and Afghanistan (A long-standing border dispute exists between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Pakistan sees the Taliban as a viable bulwark against potential Afghani trespasses made against the border).

So, we have “peace talks,” and disengage from operations against the Taliban, who claim so strongly they wish to kill every westerner. That would be great wouldn’t it, because then the Taliban will be able to lay down their arms, large swaths will go back to their home countries, and the natives can tend their fields and flocks, right?

No, they will see the weakness of this American approach, and will begin preparations for further advances.

TALIBAN, and fanatical Arab militant groups in general, at the core level, LISTEN AND RESPOND TO VIOLENCE, not talking.

Your point about Indian influence in Afghanistan is certainly valid, and steps do need to be made to curb that.

And large elements of the ISI DO SUPPORT non-state entities such as certain elements of the Taliban as a hedge against India and Afghanistan, this is in Pakistan’s own strategic interest.

The Obama administration is putting forth a huge increase in diplomatic and civilian activity so as to facilitate a stabilizing of Afghanistan.

But you say we should sit back and let the Taliban spread out eh?

Disrupt Taliban/Al Qaida infrastructure via military strikes and covert activities, then install civilian institutions.

We were building a highway in Afghanistan, something the locals in that area had long wanted. The Taliban came in and told them they’d be killed if they continued to support and work on the project; so out of fear they withdrew from the highway development project.

Had we had a military outpost in or near the village, the Taliban’s access would have been severely limited, and the civilian infrastructure program would have proceeded unchecked.

https://juiceempire.wordpress.com/

juice

New-Wing of American Military

April 26, 2009

Regarding the plan I documented in a previous post (Wrecking Af-Pak [Phase One]), I’ve come to give more thought to both the strategic and tactical advantages of creating an entirely new wing within the American military infrastructure.

I propose creating a 20,000-strong wing of elite, specialized guerilla units that would operate within the framework of a conventional war spearheaded by traditional American forces.

Say, for instance, a major war with China.

It goes without saying this would involve a heavy advance of traditional conventional methods – methods that … well I’ll just be plain here: American military prowess stands stunningly unmatched by any nation or entity on this planet; due mainly to the resources and effort we’ve poured into military technologies.

But what would it say?

What affect would it have on the minds of a conventional enemy, involved in a major conventional war with the United States, if suddenly there arose large numbers of seemingly independent, well-trained and equipped guerilla units employing terrifyingly unorthodox methods while operating in their rear?

And as stated above, these asymmetrical units would not be merely a nuisance to the Chinese, or whatever power we happened to be conventionally engaged with.

We’re talking tens of thousands of these specially trained American forces, operating WITH our already overwhelming conventional forces.

And as stated in Wrecking Af-Pak, these types of asymmetrical American units would be trained relentlessly and would become the best guerilla fighting entity the world has ever seen.

While operating in the rear of a conventional enemy, they would still be operating within the framework of America’s conventional power against said enemy, in that radio contact and aerial fire support could be called down at a whim.

And this new wing could be employed in any number of scenarios, not just in the confines of a mainly conventional war against another power.

As stated in Af-Pak (Phase One), such units could be used with devastating efficiency against other asymmetrical entities.

Mr. Gates, give it thought.

juice