Hitler had an army massive larger in terms of number of men under arms, in a country that had a population of just a small fraction of our current population. The situation isn't at all comparable.
We have under 150k in Iraq. We have multiples of that amount in combined Army and marine personnel, and we have a lot of air power in the Navy and air force.
We have enough military personnel available to smash Iran's army, but we don't have enough to sustain an occupation. The fact that an occupation would be very problematic hardly means that we don't have the power to destroy Iran's military as a cohesive force. The main problem with Iran is that it would be an even bigger mess to deal with after the initial invasion, than Iraq was.
Do I recommend invading Iran? No, I would be against it. The risk benefit ratio just isn't there. If I was convinced that they would get nukes soon AND use them soon, or maybe even if I was convinced that they would get them in the next decade or two and almost inevitably eventually use them if no serious attack is made against Iran I would support an attack against Iran, up to a full invasion if that is what it took, but I am far from convinced that is the case. Iran might not get nukes soon, and I'm far from sure that they can't be deterred from using them. The risk is still IMO great enough that if smashing Iran's military was all we needed to do to resolve the situation I'd support doing so, but smashing Iran's military from the air won't end the possibility of Iran getting nukes, and while invading might end that possibility (or at the very least push it indefinitely off in to the future) it would leave a much bigger mess than Iraq to deal with. Some have argued that we should just take out the regime and leave but then you might get the Mullah's reasserting control, or some sort of nasty failed state situation, so I don't think that is an option either. |
