Cornwallis was fought to a standstill in the Carolinas, he had two major (Through small) parts of his army defeated and destroyed (Tarleton at the Cowpens and Ferguson's Troops at King's Mountain). Cornwallis still had Charleston and all of Georgia and South Carolina, but North Carolina was in US hands and would remain so unless the supplies to the Partisans (The term Guerrillas had not yet been invented, that term would replace partisan the Peninsular Campaign of the Napoleonic Wars).
Thus Cornwallis had a problem, slowly lose North Carolina and then South Carolina and Georgia, or attack the supply base of the American Forces in Virginia. Cornwallis knew if he moved North, Nathanial Greene, Commander of the US Southern Forces would just watch him leave and retake the Carolinas and Georgia.
Thus Cornwallis, the most brilliant of the British Commanders during the Revolution, was in a box. If he stayed where he was he would lose the Carolinas, if he attacked he would lose the Carolinas. On the other hand, Cornwallis thought, once he had ravaged Virginia he could retake the Carolinas with Virginia as his base. The only problem was the French Fleet in Rhode Island. Would the French use it to help Washington or ship in to the Caribbean after the Hurricane season? The British Took Charleston for the Same reason the French were in Rhode Island, to keep their fleets out of the Caribbean during the Hurricane Season. Cornwallis was counting on the fact the French were more worried about the Sugar islands of the Caribbean than helping Washington. Unfortunate for Cornwallis, the French army Commander was able to convince the French Admiral to help Washington trap Cornwallis in VIrginia, thus lead to Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown.
My point is that, like Cornwallis, Bush is in a box. Bush is slowly losing the War in Iraq, and sooner or later the losses will get to high Congress (Afraid of losing the next election). Congress can cut funding for the War in Iraq and order the Troops home just like Congress did in regards in Vietnam in about 1973). On the other hand if Bush attacks Iran, the Supply lines to the Rebels in Iraq would be cut (At least Bush thinks so, I have my doubts but that is another story). The best way to defeat Guerrillas is to cut their source of food, arms and Ammunition. In Bush's mind this will be done by Attacking Iran. I can see Bush transferring all Air operations to attacking Iran, leaving out forces in Afghanistan and Iraq without any air cover. The insurgents in both places will just raise up and attack forcing whatever US ground forces still in Baghdad to fight a defensive operation till the air operation over Iran is over. The problem here is I see the Shiite in Southern Iraq revolting in SUPPORT of Iran, cutting what is left of US supply lines to Baghdad (The Air operation against Iran will require the use of Air Transport as Tankers for the Air Operation, thus cutting even the Air transport of Supplies ot Baghdad).
Thus I have to say I fully foresee an US Attack on Iran. Such an attack will be stupidest Military act since Hitler kept sending German Troops into Stalingrad (Hitler kept sending troops in even after it was Clear taking Stalingrad would gain nothing). Like Stalingrad if the US attacks Iran, it will lead to a disaster. When Cornwallis left the Carolinas to attack Virginia Cornwallis knew he was giving up the Carolina and may come into danger by the French Fleet and Washington's Army, Bush and his Cabal do NOT even have that idea. Bush and the rest of his Cabal have convinced themselves that by Attacking Iran, Iraq will be solved.
What I see is a full scale Air Attack on Iran. The Shiite in Southern Iraq revolts forcing the British (Who hold that area) to withdraw or ask for American Support. American Forces will be sent south but than the Sunnis in Baghdad will escalate their attacks in Baghdad and force the fall or the American Withdraw from the Green Zone. Once out of Baghdad surviving US forces will head for Kuwait, Conceding all of Iraq north of Basra to the Sunni insurgents.
Now they are some questions (Like the French Fleet during Yorktown). Like the French at Yorktown (Who basically wanted to go to the West Indies), the Sunnis do not want the Shiites to win any war with the US. Thus it is possible that the Sunnis may CUT BACK they attacks upon some promise by the US that they will get to run IRaq after the Iran operation.
Another alternative is that the Turks seeing the US withdraw south, decides it is time to teach the Kurds a lesson and Invade Kurdistan. In fact the Israeli invasion of Lebanon may have been part of plan to establish a supply line from Beirut to Baghdad. With the Israelis holding Lebanon, the Christian Lebanese holding Beirut, the Turks holding Kurdistan and the US forces in Baghdad supplies via Beirut instead of via Basra and southern Iraq. Prue speculation, but the traditional invasion route into Iran has been via Syria not the Persian Gulf.
Thus if the US attacks IRan you have several situation that can occur. One of which is an Iranian attack on Saudi oil terminals, shutting them down and with them drop in Persian Gulf Oil Production. If I was Iran and was attack by the US the oil terminals of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be my first two targets. The US military is depended on oil to fights, and by cutting world wide oil production you weaken the US military forces. This weakens Iran also, but the US more so.
Anyway back to my point, Bush and his Cabal are in a box, and they do NOT want to do what they should do, withdraw from Iraq, thus like Cornwallis in a similar situation, Bush will attack, for Bush is un-willing to admit defeat, and thus will convert defeat into disaster.
More about King's Mountain:
http://jrshelby.com/kimocowp/km.htmMore about The Cowpens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cowpens
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
