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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just_Observing who wrote (407)	3/20/2003 1:54:04 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

Another potential problem: In recent days the Iranian military commenced a series of war games code-named “Moharram.” It is possible that these exercises are intended to cover preparations for an Iranian attack on the flank or rear of British/U.S. forces advancing toward Baghdad. For many years the Iranian military has been training its elite troops for a special mission, described by Middle East expert Yossef Bodansky as a test of “the ability of [Iran’s] reorganized ground forces to confront an army of the quality of the Israeli Defense Force.” In the first series of Iranian exercises, conducted shortly after the 1991 Gulf War, three Iranian armored and mechanized divisions, four infantry brigades and paratroop forces participated in the exercise. According to Bodansky, “The Iranian forces were to breach fortified positions of the enemy and then develop a swift, deep offensive into the enemy’s rear with extensive fire support from artillery and combat aircraft.” This classic “blitzkrieg” maneuver involves the encirclement of target forces by penetrating their rear and disrupting their logistics and communications, forcing their surrender. This method was used to great effect by Russian forces against Hitler’s Sixth Army during the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II. Previously the Germans had advanced across Russia using this same method. It is of interest, in this context, that Saddam Hussein’s stated defense strategy is to turn the city of Baghdad into a Stalingrad type battle, in which enemy forces concentrated in front of the city (or inside part of the city) are outflanked and trapped. Military analysts who read about Saddam’s remarks probably scoffed, knowing that Saddam’s army, at best, could only hope to fight a static battle of attrition inside the city. But what if the Iranians are preparing an envelopment operation? Stalingrad was not simply a battle of attrition. It was a battle of entrapment and encirclement, effected by a surprise attack to the German Sixth Army’s overextended flanks. Iranian officials have stated that today’s military exercises are to test Iranian proficiency at “asymmetrical combat,” a term also used by the Chinese to describe a method of warfare in which inferior forces defeat superior forces by neutralizing the electronic and troop control advantages of the superior force. Weapons used in this type of warfare would include electromagnetic pulse bombs, surface-to-surface missiles and paratroop raids on command centers. The bolstering of Iranian troops near the Iraq border on the eve of a U.S. ground offensive into Iraq is therefore an ominous development. Iran’s strategists know that President Bush has included Iran in the “axis of evil.” The Iranian leadership has every reason to think that they are next on the president’s list of terror-supporting states targeted for elimination. It is only logical that Iran would contemplate a move against the American forces in the days ahead. Two weeks ago the Iranian 624th and 41st armored brigades advanced to marshes near the Iran-Iraq border. Iran also has surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles positioned along its coastline. These might successfully engage U.S. naval forces and assist in the temporary closing of the Persian Gulf to oil traffic. This would be a serious economic blow to America and its oil-dependent allies. The resulting economic hit on already weakened financial institutions could produce a chain reaction that would distract the president from the war, forcing him to focus on a deteriorating domestic situation at home.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (407)	3/20/2003 2:31:34 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 21614

And of course it's a given that the Saudis are paying attention too. Back in May 2002...long before Res. 1441...the invasion of Iraq was put into this context by New American Centurion, W. Kristol: "Beyond speaking truth to the House of Saud and encouraging modernization within Saudi Arabia, the United States should demand that the Saudis stop financing and encouraging radical and extreme Wahhabism, beginning with mosques and charities in the United States but extending also throughout the Islamic world, including Pakistan, Afghanistan and other trouble spots. Given its role in providing a breeding ground for anti-American terror, the export of Wahhabism is a clear and present danger to the United States and its citizens. In general, we must make clear that the Saudis can no longer play both sides of the fence. What President Bush has demanded of others -- to cut off all support for terrorists and to stand with the United States -- applies also to Saudi Arabia. At the same time, it is clear that we cannot base our strategy for the region on the hope that the Saudis will moderate their behavior to suit our interests. To the Saudis we have been, at best, allies of convenience, shielding them from other would-be regional hegemons with greater conventional military strength, larger populations and more diverse economies. The Saudi desire to create a caliphate of money and religious extremism depends upon an unwitting American partner. So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil. In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and (a little lip service here) >helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy< would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. (but the REAL motive) >Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets< would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime." newamericancentury.org