Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (201367)	11/8/2001 7:55:50 PM
From: Walkingshadow	Respond to of 769670

TAW, Very nice movie. <<....death rains down and over time the attrition will decimate all motivation. >> If this occurs, it would be just about unprecendented to the best of my knowledge. The lessons of an "attrition" approach, whether my bombing or other means (e.g., trench warfare in WW I) again and again demonstrate that this approach does not decimate motivation, but, albeit paradoxically perhaps, instead usually tends to make the enemy even more determined and willing to withstand more and more. This is particularly true when the enemy is defending what he regards as his homeland. << ....no-one is supplying food or replacement ammunition or weapons or people. >> My reading of the course of events there indicates that supply lines are virtually unaltered. That may change somewhat with the battle over Mazar-e-Sharif, which controls some supply routes from the north. But even this would be expected to have virtually no effect on troops in the south. Don't forget, these people have been trading through this area for several millenia, back at least to Alexander the Great. There have been many, many wars fought here, and the problems (supply line and otherwise) the Taliban face have been faced numerous times. It's not like they have never been there before, and don't have alternatives and backup plans and so forth. I think this should be assumed. They might be crazy, but they are definitely not stupid. << Any comparison to the Viet Cong is totally bogus in my opinion. >> Again, I must disagree. There are striking similarities: 1. Hometown crowd fighting for their homeland against what they perceive to be a foreign agressor bent on destroying them; 2. Documented willingness to endure unbelievable hardships exhibited again and again; 3. No fear of their opponent, despite being hopelessly outmanned and outgunned and out-technologied; 4. Ready willing and able to die for their cause; 5. Absolute conviction that they are fighting for what is right; 6. Demonstrated ability to adapt quickly and effectively to setbacks and generate novel strategies to keep the enemy off balance. Differences in vegetation or topography are superficial at best, probably more like irrelevant. Incidentally, I remember seeing footage of Viet Nam along the Ho Chi Minh trail that showed vegetation virtually destroyed, just a barren wasteland. It mattered little. << ....attackers also have overwhelming firepower and have good intel on the exact location of the bad guys. >> Not sure who you're referring to. Can't possibly be American intelligence, traditionally second-rate even on their best days, and no indication presently that that trend has changed. We don't seem to know where any of the enemy are with any significant degree of accuracy. If we did, I suppose we could just sling a couple of your high-tech super-smart bombs in there, accept the surrender the same day, and start building McDonald's and KFCs there the day after. The one time when we got wind of the whereabouts of some Taliban higher-ups that instigated the commando raid, even that bit of intelligence was given to us by others, not gathered first hand. And by the time that info was obtained, filtered up and back down the military command chain and an attack planned and initiated, this intelligence was old news. So the objective was not achieved. While the Army Rangers and their ilk appear to be an impressive fighting force, this kind of reaction just won't get the job done in any reasonable period of time..... and there's no guarantee that the second-hand supply of truly worthwhile intelligence gathered by others continues to be laid at our feet. And as I've said before: "overwhelming firepower" is simply NOT the major factor determining who wins a war. Nice to have it, to be sure, but I consider it a mistake to think that just because you have "overwhelming firepower" that the outcome of the war is all but assured. That notion has been proven wrong again and again and again throughout history. Worse, to the extent that a fighting force thinks that way, this puts them at a decided psychological disadvantage, IMHO. The underdog always has the psychological upperhand, and the importance of this in determining even the outcome of something as relatively trivial as a football game is attested to by the frequency with which "upset victories" occur year in and year out. The importance of the psychological edge in war is all that more magnified because the stakes don't get any higher in the minds of the participants at least. It is extremely unwise, in my view, to underestimate these things. But, as always..... JMVHO, Walkingshadow