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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19418)	8/16/2002 8:32:25 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Laz, I think Qatar will be the staging area for this Op.....Screw the Saudis and tell'em to lose our number next time their asses are on the line..... Also, any operation in Iraq will necessarily be preceded by an intensive air campaign and repeated warnings to Iraqi military units to stay in the barracks or die....

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19418)	8/17/2002 9:37:31 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

From where? The Saudis have already told us to take a hike. That requires real estate. Carrier decks won't do. Any discussion of the conduct of a war against Iraq assumes that Turkey, Jordan, and/or Kuwait has allowed US forces to use their territory as a base. If this doesn't happen, no war to discuss, unless we contemplate seizing Iraqi territory by amphibious assault, building up a beachhead, and massing forces there. This is not a very desirable option, as it would require a fair bit of time, and Washington, for both military and political reasons, wants this done quickly. I see an interesting phenomenon going on among the hawk pundits. A lot of the people who were pushing the idea of going after Saddam with a "light" mixture of special forces and local opposition forces are taking aim at the Pentagon brass that opposed this plan. I see lots of articles coming out about how the generals are more managers than soldiers, how they lack the spirit, initiative, and gung-ho spirit that soldiers need. This to me is bullshit. The only argument in favor of the "light" option is political, not military: it requires less of a presence in the surrounding nations, and will thus ease the problem of negotiating for basing rights. This is why the hawks like it. The generals don't like it because it means sticking a light force of US soldiers out in a highly exposed position supported by a highly unreliable ally. It is very likely that the Iraqi armed forces will cave in if faced by a massive US force. It is much less likely that they will do so if faced by a small special forces grouped backed by local opposition. For one thing, Iraqis that would be more than willing to surrender to Americans would fight to the death rather than surrender to the local opposition, knowing that the treatment they would receive from the latter would probably be more than a bit raw. The generals have pointed out that the risk/reward ratio on the "Iraq light" option is only acceptable if a heavy force is available and in position to bail out the light force if it bogs down or gets into trouble. They are quite correct in this assessment, IMO, and they would be remiss in their duties if they allowed politicaly motivated civilians to silence their objections. For this, they are being described - by armchair experts who will not be putting their bodies in the line of fire - as a bunch of wimps. And if that fails? Which it very well may. Remember, those Iraqis who surrendered so eagerly had been given convincing demonstrations of American power. A lot of these guys won't have had that experience. Those who did might wonder if we could do it cities. Some probably won't surrender. Each one that does is one that we don't have to fight. If a lot don't, there wil be little choice but to root them out house to house. Leveling cities is not going to be an option, for reasons too numerous to bother listing.