Replies to post #396 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[goodluck]

Well, I guess we're just going to have to disagree. Just a couple of points.

1. "Is there any doubt that the Iraqi military will be quickly vanquished in a clash with that of the US? So the dictator's fighting advantage is already besides the point; the issue is how docile the population will be to a foreign occupation; the answer I surmise you know well according to Machiaville."
I don't doubt that the war with Saddam will be won quickly, at least in those areas that we bomb mercilessly. But, Machiavelli also said that you shouldn't try to conquer a country that you aren't willing to send a colony of your own people to live in. It's too hard to hold otherwise. Not that Machiavelli was always right, or that the world hasn't changed since then (it's gotten a lot smaller, obviously). I think you may have pointed to the problem of Iraq in a prior post: it is composed of at least 3 or 4 sizable groups that hate each other. How do you make a "country" out of that? The "after-Saddam" problems will be enormous, even if the first year or two may be relatively OK. Introducing even more violence and a chaotic situation into the mix isn't calculated to make things better. Read Clausewitz: the unexpected always happens in war. My opinion is that the enormity of those after-Saddam problems haven't been thoroughly considered, either for Iraq itself or for other Islamic countries in the region or that were carved from the old Soviet Union. The Bush admin seem to think that all situations can be controlled with military might. I think otherwise, unless of course one is willing to adopt a scorched earth policy.

2. "If Saddam Hussein were the most powerful military entity in the world, he would be perfectly entitled to enforce his version of law anyway he wants". This is why I don't think further argument between us will do much good. I utterly disagree with your "perfectly entitled". He may be able to enforce his version for awhile. But that doesn't translate into "right". To completely deal with this question would take a long time. I'm not sure how to approach it right now, but if I think of a way to do so tomorrow or the next day, I'll post it. But suffice it to say that there is an abyss between our way of thinking which I suspect no argument will bridge.

gl