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: Hawkmoon who wrote (181121)	2/6/2006 1:47:18 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; I suddenly realized why it is that we differ on the relative strength situation of both the American patriots and the Iraqi insurgents. It's not that you're a "sunshine patriot" with little faith in the willpower of the founding Fathers of this country. It's not that you fail to understand the hatred that the majority of the Colonists had for Britain after 8 years of guerilla war. It's not that you were unaware that the two weapons that America was preeminent in (fast privateers / frigates and long range rifles) were the perfect weapons for a guerilla army to harass a musket armed European sea power with trade routes all over the world. No, your analysis simply takes into account the professional military strength of the two sides. Since Britain had a professional military and the US did not, you immediately conclude that Britain wins any war. Hey, if it were Britain and the US fighting over some third party, for example some island in the Atlantic, you'd be right. On neutral territory, professional military strength is preeminent. An example of this would be the Falklands campaign between Britain and Argentina. And if Britain had been oodles bigger than the US, then she could have put down the revolution the same way she put down the frequent revolutions in Ireland. But the American revolution was fought on American territory, and it is home territory that the guerilla achieves his strength. The situation is the same in Iraq. Our running elections in Iraq will result in the same eventual outcome that would have resulted if Britain, upon capturing a few important ports in the 13 colonies, had decided to have an election to determine who would run the country. The result would have been that Washington would have been elected and the British would have been kicked out. This will happen also in Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq has given strength to all the Islamic parties in the Middle East. Bush is the best recruiter that Al Qaeda has ever had. Already Iran has voted in the hard line and now Palestine. Other elections around the area are likely to give similar results. The simple fact is that invading Iraq defeated Saddam personally but did not defeat the spirit of either the Iraqis, or more importantly, the Arabs. Unlike the postwar situation in Germany, the Iraqis are continuing to fight. As I've said before, the reason the Germans didn't fight a guerilla war is because they were defeated in a long and difficult war that was incredibly devastating to their country. Iraq, by contrast, was hardly touched by the US invasion. I suppose I should mention that the reason the Iraqis are fighting a guerilla war is not because Arabs don't fight fairly. In fact, the Christian nations of Europe fought guerilla warfare against Germany when it was suitable. Most of the fighting in the Balkans was guerilla war. Sections of the French continued to fight the Germans after the surrender of Vichy. This was a repeat of the 1870 war where there was widespread French guerilla activity against the Germans. On the Eastern front, guerilla war was also widespread, particularly in the places that had been overrun in mechanized warfare. What I'm saying here is that guerilla warfare is a quite common human condition and it is important to plan for it. Otherwise one can easily bite off more than one can chew. -- Carl