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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (12191)	2/15/2006 6:08:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540836

I don't think it would be easy to quantify it, but the utility of economy of force is near universal in military and quasi-military ("war on terror") conflicts. The argument that Iraq took resources from Afghanistan is an example of an argument connected to the idea of economy of force, and in fact Iraq might have taken resources away from Afghanistan at the margin. It wasn't a major reduction in the resources available for Afghanistan only because of the high level of resources the US has available, but both conflicts together do amount to a major reduction in military resources that the US would have available for other contingencies, esp. in resources that involve "boots on the ground". (We could apply a ton of air power anywhere in the world, and naval power anywhere on or near the sea, but we have less soldiers available to throw around.) Al Qaeda's level of resources is probably more variable than that of the US military, it can grow or shrink quicker and is harder to pin down or quantify. OTOH it is also lower than the resources of the US military. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it seems reasonable to assume that having a conflict in one place leaves less resources available to use somewhere else. This can easily be true even if their overall level of resources has increased due to Iraq. Tim