From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 12:22:22 MST
At 08:32 AM 1/19/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--- BillK <bill@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Military intervention in the Middle East holds many dangers.
>
>It does indeed. The US could lose the war, for instance. Saddam's
>strategy in the last wars was stupid, to say something polite. Both
>against Iran and the US he was copying the Verdun 1916 situation. It
>wasn't successful against Iran and against the US, it was a pure
>desaster because the US forces did not need to fight this way. Instead
>they used their superior air force to smash them. Now what happens if:
Not just superior air power. We also convinced our opponent that we would
attack directly into Kuwait from the Saudi border and the sea, while
instead we went around his defensive line by going through southern Iraq
and looping down. The whole campaign really reminds me of the Axis
invasion of France.
>1. Saddam distributes his army in the cities, basically hiding behind
>children and women. The US forces would need to fight for each and
>every house. Is the US prepared for another gorilla war after Vietnam?
The Viet Kong were motivated and had secure supply bases in the North. The
Iraqis shouldn't have either; in fact their morale will probably be even
lower after having been defeated 10 years ago, and knowing that prisoners
were treated well.
>2. The US forces get too lax and make a mistake. Iraqi ground forces
>launch a fast attack on Saudi/Kuwait territory, forcing the surprised
>US forces into a large scale ground battle?
That could happen, and it would produce quite a few casualties, but even
with our reduced military we should still be able to fight them off. What
would be scary would be a chemical attack on our staging areas, but we did
take substantial precautions last war and I'd imagine we're doing so now.
>After a first success there might be other Arabian leaders joining the
>war on Saddam's side and suddenly we have the war here in Europe. I'd
>hate to see Daimler, Volkswagen and BMW produce robots-of-war instead
>of luxury cars.
>
> > It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield,
> > military
> > action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the
> > Middle East and for the world."
>
>.... since awful oil prices like we have now are not good for the
>economy. Bombing Iraq into the ground will lead to plenty of orders
>after the war. Siemens can sell a pro West Iraq all the nuclear power
>plants they don't need and Lockheed can rebuild the Iraqi air force.
>All payed with cheap oil. Wonderful.
As has been stated, Saddam would be happy to let us do all that anyway in
return for lifting sanctions. This has been better discussed in previous
posts than I can do.
>Who in his right state of mind believes that humanitarian issues are in
>the Bush family's equation?
>
>-Rudiger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST