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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: h0db who wrote (44016)	5/29/2003 11:02:00 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 50167

Hi h0db; Re: "Staggering in its depth of knowledge, and the fact that the conclusions asserted are so completely, utterly, wrong." Here it is, less than 2 months later. Our troops still enforce order nowhere, and are steadily killed by snipers, ambushes and remotely operated mines. More and more Iraqis look back with longing to the safety of Saddam's regime, or messianically to a Shiite religious state. The Third infantry division's plans to go home have been cancelled. "He said more soldiers might be deployed on combat operations though he did not believe the recent escalation of attacks would become a trend." Our troops have been thrown out of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and are under increasing fire in Iraq. Hell of a victory. The parallels to Vietnam should be more than clear. They're talking about upping US forces by 50%, this despite the fact that there is no longer any use for most of the naval and air forces. They should be talking about deploying a half million men. Instead, we get the "we can see the light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome. This is the same sort of gradualism that sucked us into Vietnam. When your forces are insufficient to perform even a part of the military objective (pacify a country of 24 million), you don't respond with a 50% increase. The other side is also going to escalate. To beat him, you respond with a 400% increase. That's the principle behind shock and awe, but we've already dropped it because it is politically unpleasant for Bush to have to admit that pacifying Iraq is going to require a half million men. The historical and military facts of life are clear. Occupying a nation like Iraq, in the face of any sort of unorganized resistance, would require an occupation force of about 1.5 million to be present for many years, even decades. Our half million in Vietnam was not enough, this despite the fact that Vietnam had considerably smaller population than Iraq. For the details on force requirements in pacifying operations (aka occupations), what I wrote back in March has had its validity well proved: Bilow, March 5, 2003 We have enough to conquer Baghdad, but as far as keeping Iraq under military control in the face of a hostile civilian population, we are woefully undermanned. Here's proof, from the military itself: ... Iraq has a population of 24 million. Using the 20 per 1000 ratio that Britain used in bringing Northern Ireland under control, the US will need an occupation force of 480,000. Oh, and those are Army forces, you don't get to count the Air Force or Navy, and in the event of ongoing terrorism (i.e. the Israeli experience) they could get stuck there for years. And only then, after tens of thousands of body bags, we retreat with our tails between our legs, having relearned the lesson that our fathers learned in Korea and Vietnam -- don't get involved in land wars in Asia unless you can get some other party to supply the cannon fodder. #reply-18657926 Other things to note is that in Northern Ireland, Britain had many advantages that we do not have in Iraq. A few that come to mind are: (1) British soldiers spoke the local language. (2) They shared the same religion with the majority side (protestant). (3) The majority of the locals were so supportive of the British that they fought to keep the Brits there (as opposed to the Iraqis, none of whom seem to want us to stay). (4) Ireland was very close to Britain, and so very important to it. -- Carl