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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steeny who wrote (87108)	3/27/2003 7:37:03 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Leading Indicator of Victory When Johnny Apple says we're thwarted, we must be on the verge of winning. By Jack Shafer Updated Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 11:09 AM PT slate.msn.com In Part 1 of the wartime news cycle, the press stands slack-jawed at the withering display of U.S. air power and high-technology battle gear (Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq). Bombs have gotten smart! the press writes. In Iraq, the bombs have become so smart, many of them have earned advanced degrees in their spare time. Geniuses at the Pentagon are revolutionizing warfare with amazing tactics. Special ops are the ultimate force multiplier. The locals are about to rebel. And so on. Having exhausted that vein, the press demands a new angle, and the vagaries of war supply them with Part 2 of the cycle. Victory wasn't as instant as we were led to believe! U.S. forces have "bogged down"! The early blitzkrieg could not be sustained, and U.S. forces are increasingly vulnerable to counterattack. The uprising has failed to gel. You can't win a war from the air; you need lots more troops on the ground. After bogging down in the "bogged down" angle, the press stages a rally in Part 3. They discover that Milosevic, Bin Laden, Saddam, et al., are the real geniuses. The enemy commanders are cum laude graduates of the international war college and masters of the art of asymmetrical warfare as practiced in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and Israel. The enemy is fighting the battle on its terms. Unnamed sources in the Pentagon fret about the previously lauded American tactics. Apple furnishes the boilerplate: "We underestimated the capacity of his paramilitary forces," said a senior uniformed officer at the Pentagon. "They have turned up where we did not expect them to, and they have fought with more resourcefulness than we expected them to demonstrate." In Part 4 the press informs us with great surprise that Saddam wasn't the only warrior who learned from past battles. Unconventional warfare turns out to be unconventional for a reason: It is a superb form of suicide. Reporters pretend they never doubted the outcome. The United States wins and promptly loses interest in the region. So does the press—until the next war cycle and Johnny Apple's prognostications.

To: Steeny who wrote (87108)	3/27/2003 7:47:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I have no more knowledge of how the war is going that anyone else, but from what I can see all that has happened is that the best-case scenarios (we kill Saddam or there is a coup) have not happened - yet - so we are working on the good-case scenarios - we use overwhelming force to win the war as fast as possible, preferably without letting Saddam use the citizens of Baghdad as human shields. Plainly, Defense had hopes of the psychological war would trigger a coup, but they didn't bet on it, and are proceeding with Plan B. This may amount to a setback, but it doesn't equal the "SETBACKS!" that the media is hyping. I would also bet that the embedded reporters are being used for misdirection -- look over here at this division, the one with the reporters in it. Not over there... The reaction of local Iraqis does not bother me. Wait until the area is secure, then we will see.

To: Steeny who wrote (87108)	3/28/2003 9:36:39 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is not the Baath resistance that troubles me. It is the reaction of ordinary Iraqis in the south. The evidence is coming out that the "resistance" may be due, at least in part, to coercion on the part of the fedayeen. But I do agree with you that the ease and speed of the operation were wrongly imprinted on US public opinion. I vividly recall Cheney being very optimistic at one of the Sunday TV talk shows. Bush tried to dampen the impression that was being made at the last minute, but it was too late. However, we are clearly not bogged down, as some would have you believe. This is the first week and we're within 50 miles of Baghdad, which is truly remarkable. The PR mistake was in creating the impression that Saddam's regime would crumble. While he may be an evil toad, Saddam is not a fool. He could not have possibly ruled Iraq for 30 years without creating substantial support from a large part of the population through lots of material incentives. I doubt that he is universally hated, as the PR would have us believe. There is clearly a significant segment of the population that has done well by Saddam, and they'll support him because they know there will be retribution against them when the fight is over.