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: Neocon who wrote (111570)	8/15/2003 2:28:31 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "Most states will abandon their war aims if they finally perceive them to be unachievable, or if the cost is unacceptable, even if they are not getting beaten much." (1) There is no effective Palestinian state available to abandon its war aims. (2) If this theory worked, then how come they're still fighting after so many decades of losing. (3) Obviously the cost is acceptable, so what is your point here. (4) Convincing a people that something is "unachievable" is more difficult than you suggest. People pretty much believe what they want to believe despite any amount of evidence to the contrary. Just look at your own beliefs regarding Iraqi WMDs. Re: "That is why there is a good chance that capturing Saddam would cause some of the hostile activity in Iraq to abate: once restoring the regime is hopeless, many supporters will give up." It's really too bad that Saddam hasn't already been accounted for as this argument will disappear, just like all those arguments (before the war) about how the Iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms, their military would fight on our side, our troop level would be below 30,000 by the end of the year, etc. But you should consider the fact that the Shias, who are no friends of Saddam, are rioting and shooting at us as an indication that you are wrong on this very obvious point. Re: "There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with suicidal tactics, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against terrorists can work in the long run." Yeah, that's why we won in Vietnam, LOL. Try this rewrite on for size: There is only a finite number of people fanatical enough to persist with a pointless occupation, and, of course, each explosion reduces the number, so waging a war of attrition against the US occupier in Iraq can work in the long run. Re: "People can change their views: Hitler enjoyed popularity when it looked as if he were a man of destiny. As he made stupid decisions and mired Germany in further jeopardy, people became disenchanted and defeatist, and even the officer corps started hatching plots to assassinate him." I don't see what Hitler's popularity has to do with anything. For one thing the Germans fought like tigers until they were completely defeated. So their adulation for Hitler was either not the way you describe it, or was not significant in reducing their miliary effectiveness. Like I said before, the Iraqi guerilla war is not being fought for Saddam, though a lot of his old soldiers are undoubtedly involved in it. The Russian czar was executed in 1918(?), but the "White Russians" kept on fighting for years. The French emperor was executed in 1783(?), but the French aristocrats kept on fighting, and eventually took back the country (after foreign involvement by the British and others). The American President fell dead in 1945, but the Americans kept fighting the Germans and Japanese. The problem with your analysis is that it is too simplistic. If it were true that the Iraqis basically wanted the US to occupy their country, but Saddam was forcing them against their will to fight us, then it would make sense that getting rid of Saddam would end the guerilla war. But the obvious fact is that the Iraqis are giving us very little assistance against the guerillas and this indicates that they are more sympathetic to the guerillas (who speak their own language, eat what they eat, worship in the same way, smell similarly, and look like they do) than they are to the US soldiers. Already the majority of the cards in the deck have been captured, but there has been no letup in the attacks on US forces. Our soldiers continue to die. If Saddam's regime really were important, then taking out important parts of it should reduce our death rate. But the deaths continue, and even show signs of expanding into previously peaceful regions. Re: "In general, it is not just who can pummel whom the most, but the whole calculus of costs and benefits, and questions like morale, that determine the outcome." This is true, but the problem is that our morale is worse than theirs. We're fighting for their hearts and minds (supposedly). They're fighting for their homes, hearts and minds. -- Carl