[Goose]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

Actually, the populace would much rather we not be there at all. In their mind, Iran wouldn't be shooting at them if we were not. The powers that be in these countries have reluctantly, after much persuasion by many US administrations over the years, agreed to host US forces in their countries. We are accommodated because the powers that be also fear Iran (and to some large extent each other). However they are still Muslim states that don't generally "like" Israel and are still xenophobic. They don't like us. The rulers know this.
 
Bahrain is a particular problem because it is very small, only 800 square km of land area. The population is about 1.6 million people. As a calibration, Bahrain is about four times the land area of Washington DC. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metropolitan area has a population density of 368 people per square km. The population density of Bahrain is about 2000 people per square km. 80% (about) are Muslim. However, there are lots of expats in Bahrain. Only 46% of the residents are citizens. Most of the rest are guest workers from India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Obviously most of these guest workers are Muslim. The Muslim citizens of Bahrain are therefore even more concerned about adding non-Muslim westerners to the mix, especially Americans.
 
The Ukrainian anti-drone defenses are manpower intensive. Machine guns and FPV drones require operators and support personnel, and lots of them. As a result, the US would need to send a relatively large force in order to implement this type of defense, something on the order of two companies minimum. These people would need to be housed somewhere. To be effective they would need to spread out a bit. This would allow them to engage the Iranian drones as far away from the target as possible and possibly allow for a second line of defense. There is no way these "grunts" would "blend in" with the public. The public would see them in their neighborhoods daily. They definitely very much would not like it. It is also unrealistic to think that such a force could be rushed to Bahrain at the last minute and be effective. It would need to be stationed there to get the "lay of the land" and participate in practice exercises even when there was no war going on at the moment.
 
As it is right now, every time the US wants to station more people at our bases in these states they have to get permission from the local authorities. We have to justify the need in a manner the host country will accept. IMO the addition of several hundred "grunts" that would be spread out through the area, not just on the base itself, would be a very hard no.

[Goose]

to all, thanks for these interesting and informative posts.   Goose, I found this quote particularly interesting:  " The US has nothing like that kind of footprint in the "host nations" along the Persian Gulf. We would never be allowed by the host country to deploy that kind of an anti-drone force even if we had one."   Can you elaborate on that?  To me, seems like in mutual best interest to have some machine guns or similar short range final anti-drone options for BOTH host countries and us.   WHat specifically are the concerns, particularly in a sutuation like right now where I assume a populace would be interested in more protection and less concerned about appearances.

Actually, the populace would much rather we not be there at all. In their mind, Iran wouldn't be shooting at them if we were not. The powers that be in these countries have reluctantly, after much persuasion by many US administrations over the years, agreed to host US forces in their countries. We are accommodated because the powers that be also fear Iran (and to some large extent each other). However they are still Muslim states that don't generally "like" Israel and are still xenophobic. They don't like us. The rulers know this.
 
Bahrain is a particular problem because it is very small, only 800 square km of land area. The population is about 1.6 million people. As a calibration, Bahrain is about four times the land area of Washington DC. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metropolitan area has a population density of 368 people per square km. The population density of Bahrain is about 2000 people per square km. 80% (about) are Muslim. However, there are lots of expats in Bahrain. Only 46% of the residents are citizens. Most of the rest are guest workers from India, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Obviously most of these guest workers are Muslim. The Muslim citizens of Bahrain are therefore even more concerned about adding non-Muslim westerners to the mix, especially Americans.
 
The Ukrainian anti-drone defenses are manpower intensive. Machine guns and FPV drones require operators and support personnel, and lots of them. As a result, the US would need to send a relatively large force in order to implement this type of defense, something on the order of two companies minimum. These people would need to be housed somewhere. To be effective they would need to spread out a bit. This would allow them to engage the Iranian drones as far away from the target as possible and possibly allow for a second line of defense. There is no way these "grunts" would "blend in" with the public. The public would see them in their neighborhoods daily. They definitely very much would not like it. It is also unrealistic to think that such a force could be rushed to Bahrain at the last minute and be effective. It would need to be stationed there to get the "lay of the land" and participate in practice exercises even when there was no war going on at the moment.
 
As it is right now, every time the US wants to station more people at our bases in these states they have to get permission from the local authorities. We have to justify the need in a manner the host country will accept. IMO the addition of several hundred "grunts" that would be spread out through the area, not just on the base itself, would be a very hard no.