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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (121650)	12/16/2003 12:06:20 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But Nadine, the real crux of Carl's argument is this: if we leave Iraq with a regime that is compatible with our national interests, the resistance will continue against that regime, and eventually overturn it. I realize there is no way to "prove" this in advance, it can't even be proven after the first government is formed, it can only be shown to be true some indeterminate period of time after the next Iraqi government is formed and the US leaves. The reason I (and I think Carl as well, but I shouldn't put words in his mouth) believe this is twofold: (1) we believe that the way Iraqis conceive their basic interests and the way we conceive our basic interests are at odds with each other. In particular over the Israeli/Palestinean issue. And (2), even more important (all politics really are local), the Iraqi political divisions are so bitter that the stability of any governing coalition will be fragile at best, and there will always be opponents who will be willing to use violence against it. There are too many weapons there and too much potential wealth and too many deaths/ghosts from the past to make any other outcome likely. Even if a government can be formed that somehow contains these tensions without violence for a few years, the very improbability of this outcome should have constrained us from doing what we did when we did it in the way we did it. And would have constrained us from doing it if it had not been part of the Republican plan to win the '02 election and, next year, the '04 election. We have better things to do with our wealth and soldiers and attention. Like fighting the real war on Islamic extremism/terrorism, and winning it before they get nukes from Pakistan or some other source. Long term, this policy will prove to be a disaster, IMHO.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (121650)	12/17/2003 8:43:49 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Hey, Carl, weren't you the one saying that no war can be won until 5% of the men are dead?" I've posted at length on this, but you still don't understand it. I think you're ineducable, but for the benefit of those who wish to hear it repeated, I'll say it again. It's a general observation that as far as conquering and occupying a foreign people, you have to kill about 5% of the population to get the survivors to kneel. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a lot less, depending mostly on how much the conquered people want to fight, which depends on what you want to do to them, and what kinds of differences you're fighting over. If, on the other hand, a war does not concern a people's homeland, then it is very unlikely that you will have to kill anywhere near 5% of their population in order to win. What this rule is about is man's tendency to defend his home. Man is a territorial animal. What distinguishes territorial animals is the inclination to fight over territory. But there is more to it than that. The other, often unspoken, half of the rule is that animals defend territory more strongly than they attack other animals' territory. Thus a reason for an animal attack is frequently given to be "defending its territory". No one ever attributes, for example, an attack by a bear to be due to its intent to "extend its territory". As an example, we were able to force Iraq out of Kuwait while only killing a very small percentage of the Iraqis. The Vietnamese forced us out of Vietnam while killing only a very small percentage of us. The Afghans only had to kill a very small percentage of the Russians to get them to leave Afghanistan. But when you attempt to conquer the homeland of a people, that is when you must use kill in great numbers to attain victory over them. It's a completely one-sided rule. The advantage, in terms of the ability to absorb casualties, is overwhelmingly in favor of the defender. For the Vietnam war, the defender was the Vietnamese (both south and north took much heavier casualties than the US did). For Afghanistan, the defender was the Afghans. For WW2, the defenders were all the major powers, and the eventual losers did take the high percentage casualties my rule suggests. Re: "Is that rule only for other people?" No, this is a very general fact not just of humankind, but also the territorial animals. Re: "Yet you expect Americans to run away because of 30 casualties a month? We fought for ten years in Vietnam, and were losing 500 a week at the peak." Already there is more domestic opposition to the war than there was against WW2 at any time, or against Korea, or against Vietnam for the majority of our stay there. Yes, the domestic opposition will force us out of Iraq. And the analogy to animal behavior follows immediately. From most places the threat of a human is enough to make a bear leave. But for control of her den, a bear will usually fight you. Re: "Now that we've caught Saddam, I expect our effectiveness in fighting to rise because we'll get more Iraqi tips." You're due to be sorely disappointed, LOL. I'll save your post and remind you of it 3 months from now. Is that long enough? -- Carl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (121650)	4/11/2004 12:22:00 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Back on December 16, you wrote: Nadine Carroll, December 16, 2003 Now that we've caught Saddam, I expect our effectiveness in fighting to rise because we'll get more Iraqi tips. The Ba'athists will be disheartened, and, more to the point, less intimidating to their neighbors. The main problems will switch to the jihadists, but few Iraqis support them either. #reply-19601403 So are the Baathists disheartened? Are they less intimidating to their neighbors? The neighbors who are marching in support of the Baathists? So is it the Jihadists that we're facing now? Have you read what Debka says about the US situation? -- Carl P.S. Maybe we should apply your own comment to you: "It is usually a mistake to listen to a man who has flipped his story three or four times, just because you want to believe it this time." #reply-19507215

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (121650)	4/11/2004 12:43:04 AM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Iraqi Tension Built as U.S. Miscalculated Fallujah and Shiite Cleric Represent a 2-Front War By Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Anthony Shadid Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, April 11, 2004; Page A01 Several American and Iraqi officials now regard Bremer's move to close the newspaper as a profound miscalculation based on poor intelligence and inaccurate assumptions. Foremost among the errors, the officials said, was the lack of a military strategy to deal with Sadr if he chose to fight back, as he did. "We punched a big black bear in the eye and got him angry as hell but had no immediate plan to disable him, so of course he struck back in a very vicious way," said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who has been serving as a senior adviser to the U.S.-led occupation authority in Baghdad. "Sadr basically implemented plans he had all along to launch a revolutionary campaign to seize power. The mistake we made tactically was in not moving swiftly and all at once against every aspect of his operation." washingtonpost.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (121650)	2/9/2005 2:43:22 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Remember a year ago when we were only taking 30 dead per month? Here's what you were writing then: Nadine Carroll, December 16, 2003 Hey, Carl, weren't you the one saying that no war can be won until 5% of the men are dead? Is that rule only for other people? Yet you expect Americans to run away because of 30 casualties a month? We fought for ten years in Vietnam, and were losing 500 a week at the peak. Now that we've caught Saddam, I expect our effectiveness in fighting to rise because we'll get more Iraqi tips. The Ba'athists will be disheartened, and, more to the point, less intimidating to their neighbors. The main problems will switch to the jihadists, but few Iraqis support them either. Message 19601403 Here it is one year on, and the 30 casualties a month you were talking about back then would be considered a wonderful thing now. The result: Iraq: How Soon Can We Get Out? Time front cover, January 31, 2005 time.com -- Carl