February 5, 2006

Iran Strategies 2: Beachhead Bingo

Hatched by Dafydd

In Big Lizards' never-ending desire to be helpful to Mr. Rumsfeld, here is the second in a series of suggestions of possible ways to neutralize Iran's capacity to develop and deploy intermediate-range ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads... a crisis we all devoutly desire to prevent.

The first suggestion I made was to forget about trying to destroy the nuke sites themselves; there are too many of them, we don't know where they all are, they're widely distributed, and they're very hardened targets. It's not an easy task. Instead, in the Guillotine Gambit, I suggested striking not at the "hand" but rather the "head": a direct strike on the ruling mullahs themselves.

In this post, I suggest a less drastic option that may still have a similar effect. I call it Beachhead Bingo.

The idea, on a nutshell, is to send about 10,000 - 15,000 troops eastward from Iraq in a blitzkreig into Iran. They wouldn't go far... just taking about a 50 to 75 mile strip all along the Iran-Iraq border, but on the Iranian side. Then they dig in hard and deep and prepare to hold their ground no matter what.

We would announce that the purpose of this incursion was simply to stop the terrorists that Iran is allowing to traverse into Iraq; we say nothing about anything nuclear. And indeed, stopping those terrorist incursions would be one of the serendipitous benefits of the strategy; it would help the Iraqis set up a government free of Iranian infiltration. But the real purpose would be to bring about the collapse of the current Iranian regime.

The idea here is to set up an intolerable situation in Iran, where the mullahs -- who only rule by convincing everyone that they're invincible -- will be forced to put up or pull out: they will have to attack our dug-in positions to drive us out of their country.

If they do not, they will lose so much face from their obvious cowardice that it's hard to imagine the government not falling there and then: if a government cannot achieve even the simplest task of preventing another country from forcibly occupying a large swath of its territory, what claim to hegemony can it make?

But if they do attack, the end result will be the same. Iran will have to send its very overrated military forces (and Hezbollah, which is a great terrorist organization but definitely not up to defeating an actual modern army) up against case-hardened American Marines or Army... who, as mentioned, will be deeply dug in and nearly impossible to dislodge.

In fact, I expect the Iranians will break against our line like waves against a cliff. We're really good at this sort of thing. They will of course resort to WMDs, but we will be prepared for that, too, with those full-body protective suits. And even if they have a small nuclear warhead or two, they have to find a way to deliver it... which at the moment means by airplane, helicopter, truck, train, or goatcart... any of which we can interdict and prevent it getting close enough to threaten us.

In the end, when the Iranians reveal that they cannot even expel a few thousand Americans from their own homeland soil, they will be humiliated and completely lose face. I am hoping that their population rises up against them in revolt, seeing that they are "paper Persians," and establishes some sort of democracy like their neighbor to the west. (We might consider coordinating this with Iranian opposition leaders in advance.)

At least it's a strategy I haven't seen anyone else suggest before... either because it's brilliant and new -- or because it's old and really, really stupid!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 5, 2006, at the time of 5:40 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/460

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran Strategies 2: Beachhead Bingo:

» While You Were Planted... from Big Lizards
...Before the telly, swilling your adult beverage of choice and rooting for that team that begins with an S.... We at Big Lizards know how forgetful our readers can be; it's easy to forget trivia like war and peace, crime... [Read More]

Tracked on February 6, 2006 7:06 AM

» Iran Strategies 0: Re-examining the "Default Assault" from Big Lizards
It's not easy (and may be impossible) to come up with alternatives to the straightforward attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. So perhaps it's ripe to think a second time about what we need to do if we decide to "just... [Read More]

Tracked on February 15, 2006 7:32 AM

» Saddle Up, Boys from TechnoChitlins
Casus Belli Against Iran! Methinks the time is overdue- they're spoiling for a fight, so lets give them one. See here, here, here and here for some very workable strategies that take into account our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.... [Read More]

Tracked on March 7, 2006 10:03 AM

» Iran Strategies 4: the Joint-Stike Attack from Big Lizards
This is a modification of Iran Strategies 0: Re-examining the "Default Assault". The first four Iran Strategies (in order of posting) were: Iran Strategies 1: the Guillotine Gambit Iran Strategies 2: Beachhead Bingo, and Iran Strategies 0: Re-examining... [Read More]

Tracked on April 25, 2006 8:46 PM

» イラン攻撃作戦3、ムラーの顔丸つぶれ作戦 from In the Strawberry Field
昨日は核兵器施設などでなくイランの頭首らを叩く案を書いたが、今日はそこまで極端ではないが同じような効果が得られる別のやり方を考えてみたい。 イランをどうするか、前回まで... [Read More]

Tracked on October 26, 2006 3:45 PM

» Iran Strategies 5: the Joint-Stike Attack from Big Lizards
This is a modification of Iran Strategies 0: Re-examining the "Default Assault". The first four Iran Strategies (in order of posting) were: Iran Strategies 1: the Guillotine Gambit Iran Strategies 2: Beachhead Bingo, and Iran Strategies 3: Re-examining... [Read More]

Tracked on January 3, 2007 3:21 PM

» Iran Strategies 6: Preparing For the "Herman Option?" from Big Lizards
We haven't had an installment of this popular (hah) series since April. (And I haven't noticed anyone screaming for its return...) But with the publication in November's Commentary of an article by historian Arthur Herman describing a new strategy for... [Read More]

Tracked on January 4, 2007 4:46 AM

» Iran Strategies 7: Is the Game Afoot? from Big Lizards
The left-wing U.K. Guardian newspaper -- formerly the Manchester Guardian -- is banging pots and pans, warning that U.S. plans to attack Iran are "well advanced;" and that even if we don't attack, our military posture could cause us to... [Read More]

Tracked on February 10, 2007 7:48 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Captain Ned

Our entire theory of warfare is based on maneuver. Quick thrusts from surprising angles. We're not set up to man fixed defenses; to do so would require far more troops than the 10,000 to 15,000 you propose. Google Earth tells me the border is 540 or so miles as the crow flies; probably closer to 700/800 miles on the ground. 20 troopers per mile just ain't gonna get it done.

The above hissed in response by: Captain Ned [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 9:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Like Ned said, the modern method seems to be: threaten all the enemy's assets at the same time, with command and control first on the list. That way, enemy redeployment really does them no good, and actually makes their situation worse because they'll get more concentrated and easier to hit.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 10:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Blank:No One

Given our recent vitriol, I am hesitant to say this, but I am going with "or because it's old and really, really stupid!"

It is a WWI solution to a WWIII problem. Digging in deep is nearly useless...manuever and application of combat multipliers is our key military advantage.

The above hissed in response by: Blank:No One [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 10:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Sounds like pouring gasoline onto a fire...

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 11:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: lmg

The Iranian response would be to truck in thousands of 5-year-old suicide bombers and send them toddling toward our troops. And they would give CNN exclusive access to the front lines.

The above hissed in response by: lmg [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 1:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

I really think y'all are being too pessimistic about our troops' ability to hold a line. Yes, we also have other arrows in our strategy quiver: mobility and owning the night and such. But I doubt we have forgotten defensive warfare in the interim.

But maybe you're right about one part: maybe instead of digging in, they should stay mobile, moving up and down the border unpredictably, and relying upon signals intel and satellite and drone spying to mass when necessary to meet the Iranian army when it comes.

This would also be an effective tactic against the five-year-old "suicide" bombers (quotes because of course they would not really be committing suicide, not having any idea what was to happen to them): how do the toddlers attack us if they can't find us?

So in the modified form, we still have the essence: visibly provoke the mullahs, then show that they cannot even defend the borders of their own country. It would also have the benefit of not turning the anti-mullah young population of Iran against us -- as I believe a massive attack on all known and suspected nuclear sites might very well.

I always rely upon you readers for outside analysis of anything I write here, but particularly in this case: what do you think of the modified proposal, still seizing Iranian territory (and incidentally using our presence to stop the flow of terrorists into Iraq, or at least slow it significantly), but relying upon mobility and intelligence to hold it, rather than "digging in," as I'd earlier suggested?

If you like this better, I'll modify the post.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 4:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: hayw

Not enough troops.

Destroys any arguement that the US in not "Imperialist" as far as the enemy is concerned - Arab "street" will make hay forever.

The border infiltration argument is specious - you don't need an invasion.

Assumption that the Iranian youth with rise up in outrage against impotent mullahs is dangerous guesswork. Better odds on unifying whole country against you. After all, look what a few cartoons can do for unity.

The above hissed in response by: hayw [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 4:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Hayw:

Wouldn't all of those same arguments also apply, in spades and doubled, were we to launch a massive attack on all suspected nuclear labs and such in Iran?

Remember, we're considering comparative military actions against Iran. To sit and do nothing is not an option. We need to compare which military action is best, assuming diplomacy fails (again).

We're not at war with Iran right now, as we were with Iraq prior to 2003 (there was a truce but not a peace treaty). We have no U.N. "mandate" to keep the mullahs in their box, as we did with Saddam. The mullahs are not overtly shooting at us, as Saddam was. And so far, they haven't made any attempt to assassinate any former presidents.

So it seems to me that the attack that most are contemplating would also allow the Arab street to argue persuasively that we were acting as imperialists; and it would be even more likely to cause the Iranian youth to rally round their bombed country than a lightly manned occupation of a strip of the badlands at the virtually unpopulated Iran-Iraq border.

Note that when Israel occupied a strip of Lebanon, driving the PLO guerillas back, it made Syria (then occupying Lebanon itself) nearly hysterical... but it did not particularly enrage the Lebanese population. The Maronite Phalangists actually allied with the Israelis, and many Lebanese were grateful to see the back of the PLO. In fact, there was far more protest against and opposition to the occupation within Israel than within Lebanon.

So such occupations do not always result in rallying the citizens of the occupied country against the occupiers; it depends upon the previous relationship and how the occupiers behave: Syria's provoked a very different and much more negative reaction than did Israel's.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 5:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dafydd,

Looks like a 5-1 (5-0 if you didn’t vote) vote against your Beachhead Bingo strategy. Heck, the Muslim world gets upset over some Danish Cartoons, and you come up with a strategy of invading Shiite Iran whilst we sorta have the Shiite Iraq on our side?!? A strategy that places “about 10,000 - 15,000 troops” (our Troops) in a holding defensive position inside of Iran, a “50 to 75 mile strip all along the Iran-Iraq border” that Captain Ned reports is some 540 or so miles as the crow flies.

Personally, humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me believes that our Military Leaders screwed up on April 13, 2003 by not conducting the second test of the GBU-43/B "Mother Of All Bombs" MOAB on Tikrit:

TIKRIT, Iraq (CNN) -- The battle for Tikrit has begun, according to a reporter embedded with U.S. Marines sent to Saddam Hussein's hometown in north-central Iraq.

Then again, the battle for Tikrit was a good place to give our Ground Troops (“Boots”) some ‘Door-to-Door’ combat training, since War Against Terrorism would require battles beyond Iraq, and such ‘Door-to-Door’ combat would be needed in order to expel Saddam’s and Osama’s stated notion that “America would never be able to place their troops on foreign soil again”...after Mogadishu. ‘Door-to-Door’...even ‘Block-to-Block’ combat, are probably in the ‘Top Two’ toughest combat situations for “Boots”.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Theodore Roosevelt

Roosevelt didn’t say anything about not using that “big stick” or laying it down, like our Military Leaders have done. Training and Tests are useless, if such are not used to *CRUSH* the Enemy. Enters Mainstream Media (MSM), with their so-called “timelines”, with their main focus on May 1, 2003...basically goes like this:

April 29 -- Sixteen Iraqis killed, 75 wounded by U.S. soldiers after the troops come under fire during protest in Fallujah. May 1 -- President Bush declares major combat over.

OK...by April 30, 2003, humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me would’ve dropped a MOAB onto Fallujah, just to show the Enemy in this battle that i had a “big stick”, and was willing to use it...so to speak “softly” whilst bashing Iraqi head and whilst conducting a second Test of the MOAB.

At some point around March 31, 2004, America offered Russia a chance to make some serious money, in some rather serious ‘Door-to-Door’ combat...since the Russians were once known to be the best ‘Door-to-Door’ fighters on Planet Earth. Russia thought about the offer, but after getting their arses seriously kicked in Afghanistan, they said “no”.

March 31 -- Gunmen in Fallujah attack cars carrying four American contractors, killing them and setting the vehicles set afire. Angry crowds drag the bodies through the streets, dismember and mutilate the corpses.

Dafydd, Muslim mobs can be tough, even against Cartoons. Never bother tossing gasoline onto a fire, when you can suck its breath out with a MOAB. WINK!!!

May 1, 2004 -- Under mounting, all 700 Marines pull out, turning the city over to the "Fallujah Brigades," a new force made up largely of former Iraqi soldiers. The brigade fails to maintain control; the city falls into the hands of militants and radicals blamed for car bombings and beheadings of foreign hostages.

Mainstream Media (MSM) doesn’t like to give a “timeline” on when our “Boots” went ‘Door-to-Door’ in Fallujah, and seriously kicked insurgent and terrorist buttocks!!! Such reporting would make Saddam’s and Osama’s predictions look rather foolish, not to mention MSM’s own idiotic predictions, huh.

At some point in this War, Israel is going to have to stand up or shut up, since America’s Military Leadership seems to have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan, and dealing with local and international criticism. Clearly, Israel understands the weakness that America brings to the table (its Left), and appears willing to accept more deaths whilst the World watches the Muslims cry over Danish Cartoons.

OK...since America’s Military Leadership faces both local and international criticism, and whilst those two seem a lot tougher than any Arab, Muslim, or Islamic countries totally combined, then perhaps our Military Leadership were wise in not using ‘Da MOAB.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Speed up on Iran

i think that Israel sees Europe changing, and are willing to take more causalities, even if Europe is confused once again. Try that in any Prison here on Planet Earth...

Anyway, i would be a brutal Leader, and would’ve given Iran a taste of the nuclear bomb in 2002, just after giving North Korea a taste of it. Why have *BIG* Sticks when you are not willing to use such?!?

Dafydd...your strategy is akin to pouring gasoline into your own fireplace at home. We have gone this far, without using the MOAB or Nukes, so why endanger ‘Da “Boots” in a suicidal move???

To your credit, you did say this:

I am hoping that their population rises up against them in revolt, seeing that they are "paper Persians," and establishes some sort of democracy like their neighbor to the west.

The Jerusalem Post puts it this way:

Skeptics are likely to doubt the effectiveness of such measures. But they were eventually effective in Libya's case. Moreover, Iran - unlike Libya - has a vast merchant class as well as an educated elite and a relatively broad middle class. It is therefore more vulnerable to international isolation.

Personally, i would drop some MOAB’s on Iran, just before giving them a Nuclear Taste of what a nuke would taste like...so to speak whilst in no Leadership position.

KårmiÇømmünîs†
Karmic SLAUGHTERER

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 5:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

If you like this better, I'll modify the post.

Modify it...

Move in, and use our Technology to introduce Technological Guerrilla Warfare against Guerrillas . You might be onto something here, like Technological Guerrilla Warfare. Nice!!!

Modify it...move it...suddenly disappear, in a Technological Guerrilla Warfare type of 'Thang.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 6:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: hayw

Dafydd


Yes, most would apply in spades, except the Imperialist objections, perhaps. You are right, I had taken my eye off the comparitive ball.

I don't think the Lebanese/Syria/Israel anaolgy stands up to comparison. The Lebanese didn't really care as they were happy to see the Syrians (occupiers) bested.

I see this situation resolving itself overnight at some stage. We will wake up to an Entebbe style in and out deal - lots of pissed off Mullahs, not really able to do much. Israelis backed by US - using airbases in Iraq.

The above hissed in response by: hayw [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 6:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

To sit and do nothing is not an option.

i disagree.

It seems that both local and international criticism matters, and America's Enemies use such to their advantage...so to speak.

Bill Clinton catered to Terrorists, whilst he ignored the threats of Terrorism...so to speak of sitting whilst doing nothing but catering whilst also ignoring the threats.

Iran's leadership sees such, both Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. If i were in charge of America's Military, i would drag you out in front of the World Socialist Press, and blow your brains out on TV. Lucky you, huh.

Iran has gotten this far, so why panic now. Let them touch 'Da Envelope, and then nuke them if Israel hasn't already.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 6:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Linh_My

I note that the comments have the feel of people with mulitary experiance. As a retired Staff Sgt and Viet Nam vet, I wish to add my name to the 5 to 1 or 0.

I also suspect that Iran has been descretely put on notice that if she proceeds on this path and a nuclear weapon is detonated in the US Iran will be assumed to be the responsible party and an appropriate response will be taken. At some point in time, a public statement will perhaps be advisable.

The above hissed in response by: Linh_My [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 6, 2006 1:59 PM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

I think Sharon already tried a very similar strategy in Lebanon and decided it wasn't optimal.

We need regime change in Tehran. How do we best accomplish this?

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2006 8:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: unclemo

Guys , stop being unrealistic, look into the history and see who at first place wanted this type of government in place (in Iran)?. USA and no one else read the history look into reality blame jimmy for that (Carter) who did not help Iran's past regime (shah) but speed up the fall of that regime (shah)and helped instead khomeini comes to power are you guys NUTS? no wonder ....... read a few good books instead of watchin CNN or FOX or ABC CBS or whatever .

The above hissed in response by: unclemo [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 6, 2007 1:30 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved