Arminkh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2014
- Messages
- 3,036
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
Well that is one of the reasons that I suggested you read that article to the end. Bottom line is that the decision makers in your country don't think the way you do. Read about Millennium Simulation and etc. Read about blinding a US spy satellite using laser. I don't know any other country that has ever done that, do you? Read about hacking into RQ-170 navigation system and making it land inside Iran. Read about mobile OTH radars with a range of 500 km. Read about fixed OTH radars which can scan the Mediterranean coasts.It is never a single item. However, when the single item is something that was technically flawed in analysis and used as instruction on how to deter an enemy, we can only wonder about the value of those other items.
While some countries like Indonesia and Malaysia can't detect a large airplane like Boeing 777 passing right over their head in a route that they don't expect it. Iran detects drones like RQ-170 and others that try to violate its airspace even though it has a mountainous area with a lot of blind spots. You simply can't compare Iran to any of the countries around it.
No, they did not. But you missed the point. No surprise there.
The point was that the military option was always available and the outcome -- the defeat of the Iraqi military -- was %99 certain. When the political options were rendered worthless by Iraq, the military option was exercised, and the result was that %99 certainty. You seems to think that if political options were available, rationality will prevail. History proved you wrong.
Iraq was an easy target ? That is a laugh...
You said that NOT because you have any inkling on what is militarily an 'easy' target but because you want to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran.
Political options towards what? What did US want to achieve that it couldn't through political means? Dismantling a nonexistent mass destruction weapon program? No. US simply wanted a foothold in that area because it was getting ready to attack Iran. If you are old enough to remember the news back then, most of the analysis were pointing towards that. If you read that article to the end you will see that a major petroleum company was warned by the Russians back then to leave Iran as US attack on Iran was imminent.
What was Iraq when US attacked? A bankrupt country that was selling oil for food and healthcare supplies. The Kurds were kind of hitting their own drum on the north. Whole its air space was a no fly zone and its air force was simply nonexistent. If that doesn't seem like an easy target to you then you are discrediting your army's might.
Who am I to diminish the tactical lessons for Iran? Iran has smart military leaders who have shown the capacity to learn.
There were a lot of objections to US invading Iraq. As an example, relation with France fell into its lowest since god knows when and US lost its public support in most of the countries. Isn't that what politics is all about? Winning the public support? That is one of the things that Obama is trying to correct right now.
every country is an easy "target" compared to US, and there were no political reasons to stop US from invading Iraq
US actually used the events during that time to get a political backing for an invasion.
Well I don't even need to spend much time rejecting your first statement. Is China an easy target? How about India? Russia maybe?
Read the news about that period and you will see that US status in public opinion fell into its lowest since Vietnam war. Even its major ally, Canada didn't want to support it in that war until US threatened to stop importing Canada's wood and meat. France was another good example. These are all political reasons.