The Pentagon is preparing to deploy about 3,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, adding to the thousands of Marines already headed to the region to assist with operations in Iran.
No decisions have been made for troops to enter the country, according to two defense officials, who confirmed the planned deployment. But the buildup of troops is a drastic escalation in the U.S.-Israel war against the Iranian regime and heightens the possibility that American servicemembers will go into Iran.
20 Comments
HeyJoe@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 161d
Thats a lot for a war he already won.
limonfiesta@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 160d
The invasion Force used for Iraq (2003) was I believe around 300,000 soldiers.
Iran is four times the size of Iraq.
This might be enough soldiers to seize one of Iran's small coastal islands, but it's not enough to hold it for long once the drones and missiles start falling.
There might be other smaller Iranian holdings in the general region that they're looking at, but using that force inside the straight or gulf, would be a bloodbath.
couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 160d
Well, it might be interesting if they were to try to take Kharg...
Sure they can aim there, but they would be a) destroying their own incredibly important infrastructure and b) redirecting munitions that could otherwise be used on soft targets in gulf states
They just need one guy running around the island waving a flag and airpower to sink incoming boats
Archer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
The size of?
limonfiesta@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 160d
Text to speech, fixed.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 25 pts · 161d
Iraq 2: dumb harder
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 160d
3*
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 161d
Lol! Trump is going to bankrupt the country. Fuckin' idiot.
rayyy@piefed.social · 10 pts · 160d
Bankrupting is his forte.
rayyy@piefed.social · 12 pts · 160d
Well, that and raping little girls.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 161d
If we collapse the WHOLE system and money isn't real...win win /s
krisevol@lemmus.org · 3 pts · 161d
We have been on track for that for 20 years. What's new
TachyonTele@piefed.social · 2 pts · 160d
We don't need it to suddenly be a speedrun.
krisevol@lemmus.org · 1 pts · 160d
The ene result is the same though. We are headed to bankruptcy.
archonet@lemy.lol · 10 pts · 161d
Oompa Loompa told the nation
have no fear of escalation,
I am trying everyone to please
Though it isn't really war
We're sending 3,000 more
To help save Trump from Epstein
Fishnoodle@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 160d
Good luck with your...uhh, mission or whatever the fuck it is that your doing there.
Catma@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 161d
For a war we have already won? For a war where Iran sent a super cereal prize to Trump to start negotiations? For a war that isnt a war but a little excursion?
Seems kinda weird to do something like that unless the supposed "peace talks" are a ruse to get more troops over there for an invasion.
ugjka@lemmy.ugjka.net · 4 pts · 161d
About enough to fight a country the size of us west coast
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 161d
"About 3,000"?
How many is that? 2,999? 2,751? 2,043?
I guess it really doesn't matter anyway.
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 161d
That's just newspapering. The military tells you 2,986 troops or 3,087 troops, and as a reporter you round to keep it simple for the morons and boomers. I'm not bothered by rounding in terms of deployment numbers, but casualty numbers should never be rounded.