"Will President Trump Send U.S. Troops On
'Suicide Mission' To Take Control of Strait of Hormuz?"
by Leo Hohmann
"President Trump is massing American troops in the Middle East, while talking about a peace deal with a country, Iran, whose leaders deny they are in any such talks and want no part of Trump’s deals. Elements from the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters and a brigade combat team will deploy to the Middle East, the Pentagon confirmed in a statement Wednesday. “We can confirm elements of the 82nd Airborne Division HQs, some division enablers and the 1st BCT will be deploying to the CENTCOM AOR,” a Defense Department spokesperson said.
Military analysts estimate that a combined 10,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops, consisting of Marines and Army units, are on the way, the first installment of which is due to arrive in the region this weekend. Never mind that this is exactly the type of operation that candidate Trump repeatedly said he would never commit to, putting thousands of boots on the ground in a hostile Middle Eastern country. Despite the rhetoric, I predicted back in January and February that any military action that involved regime change in Iran would necessarily have to involve ground troops. (I reported on Feb. 19 that ground troops would be deployed and I reported as far back as Jan. 6 that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked by the U.S./Israel, launching a much larger war than what Trump was indicating would be necessary.)
But what are the chances of success should American troops hit the ground of Iran in the coming days or weeks? I’m no military expert but I’m not sure how it behooves the U.S. operation to announce such troop deployments ahead of time, giving the Iranians time to prepare even more than they already are.
It’s especially true if you are sending only 10,000 to 50,000 troops into a country like Iran that has a million men in uniform, including 150,000 highly trained elite members of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC). One would think that maybe the element of surprise would come in handy when you find yourselves so vastly outnumbered? But again, that’s just me. What do I know?
This wouldn’t be the first time a Western army was sent on a suicide mission to take control of a narrow strait of water, where the enemy is firmly dug in with the capability to fire on the undermanned invaders. Historian Mark Cartwright, writing at WorldHistory.org, notes the World War I Battle of Gallipoli serves as a lesson worth studying. In that famous battle, the Ottoman Turks successfully beat back an attempt by the British and allied forces to capture and control the Dardanelles Strait, a narrow body of water not unlike the Strait of Hormuz now controlled by Iran. Cartwright writes of the World War I battle that took place in 1915:
“This major expedition involved British, French, Australian, and New Zealand (ANZAC) troops and was launched to break through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea, thereby providing a new supply route to Russia. The Ottoman defenses remained robust, and an eight-month-long trench battle of attrition ultimately ended in an Allied withdrawal. Infamous as a costly failure, the campaign resulted in 250,000 Allied casualties, and its staunchest promoter, Winston Churchill, was sacked from his role in the British Admiralty.”
According to Cartwright’s account, the Turks had the high ground while the invaders had no cover as they tried to trudge over rugged terrain, a factor magnified even more so in Iran, where the Hormuz Strait is flanked by miles of mountains, caves, cliffs and valleys.
“The Allied forces, with little natural cover to take advantage of around Cape Helles, soon found themselves pinned down by enemy fire, particularly from well-protected machine guns,” Cartwright writes (his entire article is worth reading here).
In short, the Dardanelles became a catastrophe soaked in British and French blood, despite the fact that they had what at the time was considered a vastly superior fighting force. Today’s modern drone warfare complicates the situation even more for U.S. troops trying to take control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Military historian Col. Douglas MacGregor (retired) also points to the Battle of Gallipoli as an indicator of what could happen in the Strait of Hormuz should Trump decide to launch an invasion there. For more insights into this fascinating historical analysis that someone in Trump’s inner circle is surely aware of, fast-forward to the 44:38 mark in MacGregor’s video interview below with Lt. Col. Daniel Davis.
MacGregor stated: “People seem to have read the story of the Dardanelles, but they didn’t read all the way through… They read the first few chapters and thought that’s a great idea, let’s do it. They didn’t bother to read the concluding chapter, which was catastrophic failure. It was a dumb idea. What they’re talking about trying to do with ground troops in the Strait of Hormuz, in my judgment, is an equally dumb idea. Unless of course, and I could be wrong about this, you have annihilated all of the intermediate range and tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and you have eliminated all of the unmanned systems that could be launched and hurled at you, so that the place is barren. And then, even more important, perhaps you can jam all of the satellites, Russian and Chinese and others, that are providing assistance and support and imagery, to the Iranians. If you can do all of those things, then I suppose you can put people on the ground with rifles, walking around looking at the neighborhood.” He added, “So we need to understand these kinds of operations are extremely dangerous, very difficult to conduct. And I hope, I hope somebody somewhere, is telling these things to the president.”
Old and stoned? You’re still good enough for drone fodder Meanwhile, multiple news agencies are reporting that the U.S. army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal conviction for marijuana or possession of drug paraphernalia. Americans up to 42 years of age can now volunteer to enlist in the Army, the Army national guard and the Army reserves, according to the new U.S. army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.
The Army has also removed restrictions upon recruits who have a single conviction for possession of marijuana or associated items such as bongs, pipes and spoons. Previously, such a conviction would require a special waiver from officials in the Pentagon, with the recruit having to wait 24 months to enlist and passing a drug test. These policy changes come just days after the Pentagon announced it would automatically register American teenage boys for the draft on their 18th birthday.
Added together, such changes sound like the White House may be gearing up for a military draft, but I don’t believe that would happen before the November mid-term elections. Trump is increasingly looking and sounding like he is desperate to find a way out of the Iran war that he publicly describes as a raging success. But none of his options are good ones. He can either claim a hollow victory and walk away, or he can escalate the war by launching a ground invasion of a heavily guarded Iranian coastline with geography that favors the defenders over the invaders. A third option would be to use nuclear weapons against Iran, something no sane person would hope to see.
Trump announced Thursday he was increasing his 5-day cessation of the bombing to 10 days, with a new deadline of April 6 for Iran to accept his “deal.” This deal, as best we can tell from Trump’s own words, is total and unconditional surrender, which of course is a non-starter for Iran. The extension of Trump’s deadline to April 6 means nothing to anyone who knows Trump. He has a history of setting artificial deadlines. If there’s one thing we have learned from Trump’s record as the “peace president,” it’s that we should not pay attention to anything he says, but rather watch what he does."
No comments:
Post a Comment