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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (7502)	11/16/1998 2:14:00 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Mr. Papadopoulos, You quoted Stratfor about the confrontation between Iraq and the US; "The very geometry of the relationship is asymmetric." Mr. Hed argues that we win because we didn't have to actually kill lots of people with our superior weaponry. It seems that asymmetric can skew toward the side of muscle that we can flex. Chalk all the deployment hours to the training we would have had to do anyway. Stratfor seems to argue that Iraq obtains the asymmetric upper hand because of its ability continuously to enervate the military muscular response reflex spasmodically and ineffectually. So who wins in so called "assymetric warfare"? Both sides can claim victory. Kinda makes one think about the good old days of plain old "warfare by attrition". Jerard P

To: George Papadopoulos who wrote (7502)	11/16/1998 9:21:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

George, I read the Stratfor pieces, but I don't think they should be accepted as gospel truth. For one thing, they often seem a bit alarmist, perhaps natural in an organization which feels obliged to produce a daily "red alert". I take particular issue with the following: Saddam is in control of events. He can create crises. He can abort crises. The very geometry of the relationship is asymmetric. The U.S. cannot deliver a decisive blow against Saddam, nor can it disengage. This means that Saddam can control U.S. behavior." This is truth, but not whole truth. Saddam also cannot deliver a decisive blow, nor can he disengage. Nor can he accomplish any of his political or economic goals. To observe that US behavior is affected by Saddam's actions and reactions is one thing, to leap to the conclusion that Saddam can control US behavior is quite another. If Saddam could control the US, the sanctions would have been lifted long ago, and nobody would be discussing arms inspections. It might be more accurate to describe the situation as a standoff which neither side is able to unilaterally resolve. This is difficult to accept for the US, which is accustomed to being able to resolve situations unilaterally, but it does not mean that the US is being dominated. I also do not believe that the US decision not to occupy Iraq was based on the horror of seeing Iraqi soldiers killed. The idea that the US could have gone in, removed Saddam, walked away, and watched a decent, democratic, government emerge is absurd. An extended occupation of Iraqi cities would have been a security nightmare; urban guerilla warfare, with snipers, carbombs, etc. would have inevitably involved heavy casualties among Americans and civilians. A new government could have taken months or years to form, and the composition of that government could have become an item of serious conflict between the US and allied Arab states. An American occupation of a Muslim country would have been difficult for Arab allies to justify supporting, giving radical minorities in Saudi Arabia and other states an issue to use against moderate regimes. A decision was made to extract cleanly and hope for - and presumably encourage - the emergence of anti-Saddam factions that might make a credible alternative. With hindsight, this may seem to have been the wrong decision. At the time, with the information available then, it was, I think, the right one. I'm not even sure that it was wrong with hindsight. I would rather see us keep a few ships in the gulf and dump a few missiles on him now and then than watch us sink into a Vietnam-style quagmire with dire regional implications. JMO, obviously. Steve