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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (29235)	10/1/2003 10:47:04 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Thanks for the Stratfor article. I don't always agree with them, but they are consistently thought provoking. A few quotes from the article. No one expected this type of guerrilla war in Iraq, although perhaps in retrospect, everyone should have. Huh? Perhaps this thread should have been read. Now it is certainly true, that no prediction that Saddam would opt for guerrilla war was made, but that an occupation of Iraq would attract resistance to an invasion of the ummah, was an obvious inference - and stated in print here. so far al Qaeda's record in drawing the United States into difficult situations should not be discounted. An understatement to the point of hyperbole. Of course, Iraq was not so much of a "draw in", as "seizing an opportunity" - from the neo-con perspective. In general, Rumsfeld believed that technology could substitute for manpower, and that large conventional formations were not necessary. He was right in every case but one: large-scale guerrilla warfare. Or more precisely, the one thing the United States didn't want to be involved in is the one thing the enemy dealt up. When you think about it, that makes sense. And entirely predictable. Before 9-11, the Muslim world had learned that the only way they could fight the west, was by guerilla tactics. So, only a fool would have thought they wouldn't try such tactics on the US - given the opportunity. So what did we do? That's right - give them the perfect opportunity. this war has been all about surprises For the neo-cons, that is certainly true. Hence, the sooner the neo-con mentality is "fired", the better. increasing the force by 50 percent or doubling it is not something officials want to do now. It cannot be done by conscription. Not only are the mechanisms for large-scale conscriptions missing, but a conscript army is the last thing needed: The U.S. military requires a level of technical proficiency and commitment that draftees don't bring to bear. A compelling argument for using the military judiciously - and rarely. But of course, that wouldn't fit with the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) full employment agenda of this Admin. JMO lurqer