Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "You are so inconsistent. You've been saying for months that, if we were going to war, we'd have a huge buildup like we did for Desert Shield. That took months, and there was no element of surprise."
If you'll look back at Desert Shield you will discover that the US made essentially no attacks on Iraq until the Air War began like a ton of bricks. This is the way that we start (successful) wars. What's going on in Iraq has been going on for 10 years, and like Nadine's so called "war of attrition", it isn't real war. Or if it is, then I guess you're defining "war" to mean whatever it takes to mean so that you can be correct about a war being started in Iraq, LOL.
No, there is no element of surprise when a democracy starts a war. There's all kinds of voting and stuff.
Re: "Which reminds me, half the time you argue that war with Iraq will be horrible because they are so formidable and will fight so hard, and half the time you argue that they are no threat, what are we worried about?"
Military strength is not some number that you can compare to another number like two children playing a game of "Risk". Military strength is different according to the operation it must perform.
Iraq is very weak on the attack, but stronger on the defense. The same applies to Iran, by the way, which is my simple explanation (as well as the US Military's) for why the Iran / Iraq war was fought to a stalemate, as was the Korean war. The simple fact is that Iran was not strong enough to destroy Iraq, but they were strong enough to turn an Iraqi invasion back. And that was before the US destroyed half the Iraqi army in the Gulf War, so why the hell would anyone say that Iraq is so powerful now that they're scaring their neighbors?
Defense is typically stronger than attack for a lot of reason. Attacks require that you move a lot of forces around out in the open where they are more easily destroyed. The defender gets to dig in. The defender gets the choice of terrain. Attack typically lengthens supply lines, making resupply more difficult. The attackers have to carry their stuff around, the defenders have it already in place. The human tendency is to more strongly defend his own territory than to attack others, which means that the defender is more willing to accept casualties than the attacker is (as was well illustrated by our experience in Vietnam). The defender is more familiar with his own terrain. Guerilla warfare can only be fought with the acceptance of the civilian population, and that is obtained most easily on one's own territory. The human tendency is to sympathize with the recipient of an attack rather than the attackers, and that makes diplomacy easier for the defender. Diplomatically, guerilla warriors are excused of their excesses, but that of attackers are not (again, Israel is an example).
This is why Iraq is not a realistic threat to their neighbors anymore, and it is also the explanation for why it is that their neighbors (who paid us to throw Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991) are vocal in their requests that the US not attack Iraq now. They're not scared because they have enough military force to stop Iraq from invading them. Iraq is not a threat to them.
The other half of military force is the ability to defend. In this, Iraq is naturally stronger than their ability to attack, but the US is still easily strong enough to defeat Iraq militarily. I've repeatedly stated this on SI for over a year now (see September 15th, "Hi Rich1; If we go to Afghanistan or Iraq, we will kick their butts. " #reply-16357532 for example), I don't see why it should be confusing to you. But defeating Iraq is not the problem we would have with an invasion of Iraq. The problem is what do we do with it afterwards. The problem is the guerilla war, the Israeli problem.
If we execute a foreign policy identical to the Israeli one (and damn near directed by them), our result will be similar to the result of the Israeli foreign policy. None of the nations in the Middle East are afraid of Palestine invading and taking over their country, but that hasn't kept Israel forces from repeatedly getting their asses kicked by Palestinian guerillas.
We're bigger than Israel, but our armed forces are not as elite, and Iraq is proportionately bigger than Palestine. In addition, Israel is stuck in the Middle East and has no choice but to disband or fight, so Israel is willing to accept fairly high casualties for the long haul. We, on the other hand, are there strictly as an option, and will pull our forces out after sufficient numbers of soldiers come back dead. Everybody knows this, both over there and over here. You should read what President's Johnson's advisers were telling him in 1963-4.
The difference with Afghanistan is that we have a history of supporting the Afghans against invaders, and supporting them with food assistance. By contrast, our history with the Iraqis consists of killing them, breaking their stuff and starving their children. Don't give me the bullshit about me fighting the last war, (which you somewhat arbitrarily define to be Vietnam), because I've already shown that I correctly predicted that Kabul would cheer our soldiers. The only reason I bring up the subject of Vietnam, rather than the rest of the intricate and complicated human history of warfare with which I am familiar is because of the limitations of this thread.
They're not going to be happy campers when our well armed soldiers show up in "friendship", no matter what the fantasies of the neocons are. The US military knows this. They're the ones who've talked with Iraqi prisoners of war, not the neocons. That's why the military is hesitant about getting involved.
-- Carl
P.S. War is eternal, its history is ancient. The principles have not changed significantly since Thucydides described the Peloponnesian War, but referring to events from 2000+ years ago is pointless when your readers are historical illiterates unfamiliar with even the Vietnam war or the implications of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
These same historical illiterates clamored for years that there was no stock market bubble because "this time it is different". I told them that they were wrong, and I took my satisfaction years later. I am very patient, and I will take my satisfaction in the long term here as well. Your inability to understand the principles of war, with the differing strength of the attack and the defense are not proof that I, or the US military is similarly afflicted. If you don't believe me about the difference in strength between attack and defense, then I can provide you with references from .mil web pages, but you'd reject those two. You're basically as blind as a bat. "This time it's different" you'll say, LOL.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Eventually the US will repeat the mistake in Vietnam. But it's too soon for the US to repeat Vietnam as the officers who saw their buddies killed by pissed off civilians (that the US had come to "help") are now generals. So no war in Iraq. |
