Iraq 5 years later

[Kasz216]

PDF said:

Kasz216 said:

What if i think we invaded Iraq to have a stable staging point from which to base troops to respond to trouble in the middle east because Turkey has been at best a fickle ally and putting troops like that in Israel would be the worsed idea ever?

Specifically to take down Iran's current government. However, Bush and crew greatly underestimated what it would take to get the Iraq government up on it's feet.

Honestly though, i can't respect anyone who says we should just pick up our toys and leave after making a mess in their house no matter what condition the country is in. It's even more dispicable then the things Bush did to invade in the first place.

Having a ally in the Middle East other than Turkey and Isreal would be a good idea and a extra bonus but the idea we needed Iraq to invade Iran is failed. Why not invade Iran 1st? It would make no sense to waste time in Iraq if you goal was to take down Iran.

No viable points of entry. Turkey wouldn't let us use their land, or even their bases likely to even bomb let alone mount a campaign to the northwest and I doubt Kuwait would let us mount an invasion either. Or bombers since Iran actually has the potential to strike back a bit. Paratrooper assaults would just be idiotic considering the terrain and the fact that they know it better.

Leaving either a naval assault from the gulf of Oman, which likely would be blocked... and an Eastern assault from Afghanistan which would mean to get to Teahran and anywhere of importance we'd have to go all the way through Khorsan and Semnan.

It'd be a long trek, and Semnan would be a real pain to deal with if Iran started using guerilla tactics. We COULD get to Tehran by there if that was Bush's original plan... but it would probably make the bloodshed in iraq look like childs play.

Meanwhile Tehran would be fairly unmolested.

While Iraq... who was rightfully easy to conquerer (though they underestimated how rebuilding) would offer a nice place from which to bomb.

Furthermore they could take Tehran by going through Khustean, Chaharmahal and Bakhitari and Qom. Likely forcing their main government into the mountains right next to Iraq.

Which is where they would likely hide anyway if we took Tehran considering the geography.

Making a pacified Iraq that much more important.

Or if they wanted to they could push them south... east wherever. With Iraq and Afghansitan covered you could force two fronts if you wanted and pretty much direct where Iran had to defend from.

Of course i'm not a military expert or anything.