Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Seven EP #239 Try Two From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1991 03:33:42 +0000 Issue #239 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* To the list of famous oxymorons -- military intelligence, learned professor, deafening silence, and jumbo shrimp -- I'd add professional investing. ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG II, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER, OPERATION DESERT STORM, THE SOMME And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: REPUBLIC, BORODINO, KHAN, SUTHERLAND And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha Chapter Three contains: SQUALANE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY, MASTERS OF DECEIT, PANDORA, NOW AND ZEN And is published by mad-2@kub.nl/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: DEADLY DAGGERS, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME, BEREZINA, FONTENOY And is published by daguru@ucscb.ucsc.edu/Nicholas Jodar Chapter Five contains: YALTA, AJAX And is published by ddetlef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu/David Aaron Detlef Chapter Six contains: BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE, GIBRALTAR And needs a publisher. Chapter Seven contains: HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER ------------- Chapter Seven ------------- Table of Contents: Playing England TARNOVER CITY ONE (20.3.91) Letters from Steve Robinson Letter From Michael Norrish ---- "Playing England" scribed from the Player's Guide by Daniel Loeb (loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr) Her insular position affords England great security. She is also the only player whose primary strategy must absolutely be naval. Building a lot of armies is something England does not get into until the midgame if ever. [DL: To avoid this simple fact, the variant GREAT-BRITAIN has been devised. Check it out, a GREAT-BRITAIN variant game called "HASTINGS" is being started on the JUDGE using EP house rules and grey press.] Yet England can't win without getting onto the Continent. Her usual routes are through the Low Countries into France or Germany, or through Scandinavia into Russia. England's very strength is a weakness. Gamewise players will not treat with her on an equal basis. They will want more out of each deal than they give. This will compensate for their weakness relative to the Wicked With of the North. Dealing with less experienced players, England will find that she can often power and bully her way to a commanding position. With players who know better, she will need to adhere more closely to a program of gradual expansion while preserving the Balance of Power: England's traditional policies in pre-atomic Europe. It is not to England's advantage to have any player eliminated unless England herself does the deed. [DL: Of course that is equally true for any country.] *** NEGOTIATIONS *** [DL: pre-Spring 1901] AUSTRIA. Making specific proposals to Austria is probably a waste of time at best. At worst, it might reveal important information to a hostile alliance. England wants to prevent an alliance of Aus/Rus/Tur or Aus/Ita. Offer help against Russia, but don't *ask* for help against Russia. Keep the channels of communication open and make lots of friendly noises. FRANCE. France is England's best friend and most useful ally. French naval power can concentrate in the South, as England's can be kept in the north. This avoids misunderstanding. France offers help in gaining access to the Continent adn will keep enemy fleets bottled up in the Mediterranean. The Anglo-French allaince is the most powerful on the board (except possibly for Russo-Turk). It is stable and easy to manage. On the whole, it is easier for England to stab France than _vice_versa_. A good French player will be aware of that. Even so, every effort should be made to secure French friendship. GERMANY: Germany is England's second-best ally, and many players prefer the Anglo-German alliance to the Anglo-French. Its advantage is two-fold. First, Germany does not need a powerful navy, eliminating a threat that France poses, however distantly. Second, England can hold the Mid-Atlantic herself, an arrangement she would prefer. The disadvantage is the requirement for England to divide her naval power into two wings. She will thus build fewer armies: but direct access to the Continent will be severly limited by German interests in any event. [Note: Because an alliance with England is usually preferred to a war with England, she can use this to negotiate the best possible deal with France and Germany.] ITALY: England's attitude toward Italy depends on what she has going with France. As France's ally, England should cajole or even threaten in order to Italy neutral and/or pointed east. As France's enemy, England should encourage an Italian attack on Marseilles. (DL: In the doubt, always encourage Italy to attack. After all, it doesn't hurt *YOU* does it?) Always hold out the possibility of a midgame alliance. This is not unreasonable, so long as England is willing to give up Spain and Portugal in order to get it. (DL: Make Italy settle for just Spain (sc!) and Marseilles.) RUSSIA: Whether her target is France or Germany. England does not want war in Scandinavia. Securing a nonaggression pact with Russia is vital. However, there are times when Englnad will want to his Russia ahard and early. This usually means having an alliance with both France and Germany. Then, too, England wants Russia to have a minimum force in the north. If she communicates nothing else, she should communicate smiles, reassurances, and warm fuzzies. TURKEY: The other Wicked Witch is in some ways England's good friend. The lines should always be kept open. England may wish to dissuade Turkey from a naval policy, or persuade Turkey to attack Russia. England does not want Turkey destroyed. Hemmed in, yet; but not destroyed. *** OPENINGS *** 1. F Edi-Nrg F Lon-Nth A Lpl-Edi 2. F Lon-Eng F Edi-Nth A Lpl-War 1. This is England's best opening, sometimes called the "Churchill Opening" (after Sir Winston's plan to invade Norway in World War II). The army is sometimes stationed in Yorkshire (partly to guard London in the case of French perfidy). If so, its offensive role is then much more limited. From Edinburgh, it can be convoyed by either fleet. It thus has the choice of going to Norway or to the Continent. It can also be convoyed to Norway by one fleet and supported in by the other. This opening is viewed as primarily anti-Russian. It can also be anti-German. One powerful Fall moves is: A Edi-Nwy, F Nth C A Edi-Nwy, F Nrg-Bar threatening Russia even more directly. 2. This is blatantly anti-French. The threat is A Wal-Bre F Eng C A Wal-Bre. If France moved F Bre-Mid, she is probably faced with the choice of giving up either Spain or Portugal in order to protect Brest. England may also allow her to slip back in the home center while convoying the army to Belgium instead. Meanwhile, F Nth can either support the army into Belgium or take Norway. It is pretty silly for England to pass up the Norwegian center. *** MIDGAME *** The direction of Englnad's midgame depends on whether her main ally is France or Germany. ALLY: FRANCE. At this point England may control Hol-Kie-Den-Nwy. Depending on circumstances, she may wish to drive Russia out of Swe-StP. If she has not done so already, that is the next important objective. England must insure that there is no other naval power in the north. (Even with a strong alliance with Russia, England is well advised to find a way to get rid of that northern Russian fleet.) England will being to build armies and use her fleets to convoy them into northern Germany and Russia. From there they will march toward Sevastopol and Budapest. ALLY: GERMANY. England's holdings should include Bre-Por-Spa. She hopes to restrict Italy's share of the spoils (if any) to Marseilles (she should only be so lucky). If she has not put fleets into the Mediterranean, she should delay no longer. Her strategy is to drive through Italy, securing Nap-Tun-Ion. In the North, England should hold Stp. Further expansion will not be possible because Germnay will claim Mos-War. England must now judge how many units to leave behind for protection (and possible stab) against Germany. There can never be too many such units. However, the southern campaign and German diplomatic pressure will necessarily limit England's options. *** ENDGAME *** England and her ally will now be driving against one or more powers occupying Austria, the Balkans, and Turkey. This is one of the most difficult positions to crack. England will find herself tempted to win by stabbing her ally. The ally will feel a similar temptation. This position, England/France (or Germany) vs. Turkey, is one of the most common stalemate positions. If one western ally stabs the other, the eastern power will pick up enough centers to win. If not, there is usually a draw. These are the usual parameters of England's endgame. How the situation resolves itself depends on who stabs whom, when and how thoroughly. TARNOVER CITY ONE (20.3.91) TARNOVER CITY is produced by Mark Nelson (amt5man@Leeds.cms1.ac.uk) for distribution with John Bray's SF APA (jbray@uk.co.compulink.cix) and Eric Klien's ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL (Eric_S_Klien@com.portal.cup). If the sight of raw speling mishtakes offends thy eye, then either pluck it out or move on to the next contribution] Seriously, I can not spell and have not yet discovered if there is a spell checker hanging out in Leeds... This is WEST RIDING PRESS PUBLICATIONS 160. ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* Love it or hate it there is no denying that cyperpunk was the `in' thing throughout most of the 1980's. Indeed today it barely seems possible to pick up a critical SF journal without discovering yet another article on cyperpunk; either explaining how wonderful it all is or showing that the appropriate technology is just within our grasp. Yes this is seemingly one SF prediction which is going to come to pass. VECTOR 159 contains K.Bailey's "CYPER -and some other- SPATIAL METAPHORS", INTERZONE 44 has Bruce Sterling on `The Cyperpunk Bust', VECTOR 158 had Charles Stross on "Myths, Computers and Cyperpunk"... the list is seemingly endless and we have yet to mention the countless interviews with those new-ground breaking authors! Yet despite all this critical attention and acclaim I can't help feel that Cyperpunk is being hyped above what it deserves and has been jumped on as the latest band-wagon to sell stories (from an author's view-point) and books (from a publisher's viewpoint). Perhapes I am just a technological luddite but I am not impressed by the majority of cyperpunk fiction that I have read. Perhapes after the hype I expected too much, but whilst the original ideas may have been technological exciting to SF readers when the material first appeared at this stage in the 1990's it becomes increasingly more difficult to understand what the fuss is all about. Perhapes you really had to be there to understand and appreciate it. As the technology outlined in the books becomes more attainable and more acceptable to the reader than attention moves away from the shear excitment generated by the ideas present in the technology (and the `real-world' implications thereof) to a more `literary' consideration of the books. And here I have my main problem, Cyperpunk seems to be poorly written and uninspiring (particularly in the case of William Gibson, great short stories but the novels...?). Still, it may be the case that I have been unlucky in the books that I have read. John tells me that many of the readers of this APA are deeply interested in Cyperpunk...in which case you are all invited to suggest a Cyperpunk reading course, perhapes the five best (or most important) cyperpunk works? I don't promise to read everything that might be suggested but it will at least go onto the `Books To Read Real Soon' list Having debunked cyperpunk it seems strange to admitt that one of the books which I have enjoyed reading recently is a cyperpunk book, although having first been published in 1975 John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider" is pre-cyperunk cyperpunk. As a matter of historical interest it would b interesting to know if the likes of Gibson and Sterling read this and if what, if any, influence it had on them. The background to this book is that everybody has their own personal code which they can use to send instructions to the net, even sending instructions over the veephone by punching in the appropriate sequence of codes. For instance any doctor treating you can have access to your full medical record by punching in the appropriate access code, even more importantly you can ensure that your mail always reaches you regardless of how often you move by sending the right code to the Post Office. Taking the freedom that all this implies, then mass movements of population becomes straight forward. Want to move to New York for three weeks and then Washington for two? Simply enter the appropriate codes and everything will be taken care of and rerouted to wherever you may be living at the time. All this freedom of movement has important sociological considerations ...just how does the Goverment keep track of everything, how do people react when their neighbours change every week or even when their own jobs change whenever they want to try something different. As well as the themes which we might expect to meet in such a book, the book considers the impact of such freedom on Goverment. How does Goverement react to such a large amount of information being available to so many people and how does Goverment remain in control? Further, in an age when many countries have the same standard of technology it becomes increasingly more important to remain that little bit ahead of the field. The Goverments answer to the increasing complications is Tarnover. An intensive education centre for bright deprived kids, designed to maximise their ability top answer the increasingly complicated questions that face Goverment. Or is it? Perhapes the reason why I enjoyed this so much is that the technologicalal base which undermines it rarely comes to the fore. It may be implied, it maybe discussed in conversation where necessary but it remains firmly in the background. As a reader we are not directly concerned with all the ins and outs of it all, we're interested in the implications and the problems. The author is happy to keep to these. One of the most enjoyable books I have read this year! Perhapes (speculation) this is the reason why I enjoy the short story rather than the full-blown novel. There isn't room to concentrate on the technology, it must remain in the background. INTERZONE 42 contained Greg Egan's "Blood Sisters", basically an AIDS story. Here the basic virus escapes from an American biological warefare research center and goes on to replicate...having been designed to do just that it continues to do so and whilst only a few strains are infectious to humans it is impossible to kepp up with it. So what is the cyperpunk angle? Well there isn't one. There are no AI's and the technology outlined in the story accordingly has little link to that gushed over by cyperpunkists except in the most trivial of cases. Perhapes one side-advantage of the prominace of Cyperpunk is that authors in the 1990's can take for granted a certain minimum understandin of computer-technology in their readership that was not possible before. At the end of this piece the heroine hacks into the drug manufacturers network, finds oujt what is happening and denounces it to the world. (In fact this is very similiar to the ending in "THE SHOCKWAVE RIDER".) Nothing extreme, nothing startling...the events which are described will be familiar (in `theory' if not in practice!) to many INTERZONE readers. Along with John Christopher's piece in the same issue this was my favourite piece of fiction in this particular issue. It used the technology as a background to the story, and not the opposite way round.. Perhapes I'd better go and read something so I'll have something to mention next time.... ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* As a postscript I must add that I consider Charles Stross to miss the point in his article in Vector 158. His principle argument seems to be that the failure to consider research in nano-technology and virtual enviroments renders the Cyperpunk experiment uselss as it missed out too many important technological matters which will have a real effect on the real world. My response is, so what? The areas which Stross mentions do intend offer furtile new ground for some good fiction, but it hardly seems credible to criticize a genre for not covering areas which have only so recently become prominent. To claim that "Science Fiction has failed even to reflect the present state of the art" is possible true, but in an area which moves so fast is it really possible to reflect the present state of the art? ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: Eric: This is my response to something I saw in the latest EP. Steve > Issue #237 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: > From: loeb@nestor.greco-prog.fr (Daniel Loeb) > > "POKER PROGRAMMING PROJECT" Diplomacy Programming Project > March 26, 1991 Daniel Loeb > > We believe that games of imperfect information > and those involving both chance and skill are more useful for certain > studies in Artificial intelligence than games of pure skill and perfect > information - without trying to belittle the intellectual challenge, > the depth and dreadth of the efforts needed for programming games in the > latter category, such as Chess or Go. [Of course, Diplomacy is a game > of imperfect information with luck and skill, despite its lack of > dice or cards. ] Diplomacy is a game of perfect information. The set of possible combinations of orders on a given turn is *immense* but finite. The possible orders are deterministic rather than probabilistic. At any given point in a game, a chess player may choose any one of a number (around 38 on the average in the mid-game) of the moves available to him. His choice may seem sensible or random, but the list he chooses from is determined from the position. The choices which can be made by seven Diplomacy players at a given point in a game run into *HUGE* numbers, but they could be listed one by one, given sufficient time. This does not of course include joke orders such as "F Sev thumbs nose at mangy Turk." Given the huge number of possible transitions from one game state to the next, Diplomacy may well *seem* like a game of imperfect information while in fact it is not. Also, I'm not refering to deals, alliances, etc., but only to the tactical part (orders to the fleets and armies and draw and concession proposals and votes). From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: Hey Eric: How about more tactics articles in EP such as the ones in EP#224 which was sent out 1/27/91? These were The Lisbon Leapfrog by Mark Berch which was reprinted from DW#60, and Instant Diplomacy by Lee A. Kendter, Sr. . These were good, and more like them would be welcome. Steve My response: I need more scribes to type in articles. Eric Klien From Michael Norrish <NORRISH@ST1.vuw.ac.nz> Dear Eric, Russ has just sent me the latest issue of Chapter One. I haven't looked at it properly, but on the whole I would say that it looks as if all is well. It was awfully big, and this relates to what I first meant when I suggested that people rewrite their reports more compactly. Someone quite correctly pointed out that you don't actually save any disk space when you use less CRs but, all I can say as a Chapter Checker is that you do save an awful lot of scrolling through enormous documents. Another factor, which doesn't apply to me, but which might affect people with different screen editors, is the greater line length of these spaced out reports. I like the suggestion that the volume of stuff actually published be reduced. This seems sensible, although it does mean that there have to be criteria for deciding which games are 'interesting' and which are not. Personally, I don't really have the time to observe any games at all so I just restrict myself to the range of interesting things that you put into Chapter 7. Obviously the players would like to see this stuff, but the rest of the world is not so likely to want it. If someone really does want to observe a game, then s/he can ask the GM directly for game reports. I think that's all I needed to say, Michael My response: All games are published so it is easier for me to know which games are having problems. It is also useful if the GM fails to make a game end summary report and I need to dig up the information. If at least one player in each game kept a copy of all the info needed for game summaries plus informed me of any game delays, then I wouldn't need to publish so many chapters. Unfortunately, players tend to neither inform me of game problems nor compile game summaries. But one day... From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > You're wrong. The gulf states have always been reluctant supporters > of the PLO, now that the PLO has backed Saddam, they will give the > PLO no support at all. Remember that if the gulf states and the > Palestinians were true friends, the Palestinians would not have been > so helpful in the takeover of Kuwait. I sure hope I am, but I remain to be convinced. The PLO was only an ally after the fact, if I hear correctly. Which states are called "gulf states?" I thought Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. were all gulf states. If so, then siding with Iraq after the invasion was simply siding with one gulf state against another. If not, then we may be talking about apples and oranges here. > At the minimum, Arafat has to go. He has lost all his credibility. > Even King Hussein was not as badly hurt by this crisis as he was. These guys have a knack for survival. When your power base is in the hatred of an entire ethnic group for another, personal differences can get glossed over in a hurry. Arafat or no Arafat, the PLO will always be a pack of dangerous scuzballs. If Arafat and company can say "By siding with Saddam, we spit in America's eye, struck at Israel, forced the Palestinian question to the forefront of world news, and caused a conference on the subject to be held," he may *gain* support. Remember, the Palestinians who have any power and say among the people, are not rational people. They would rather fight, kill innocents, scream, and "make statements" than behave in a mature civilized manner and possibly help the Palestinian people thereby. > True. This means that if Bush begins an attack again, it will > probably be extremely severe. Note that we have been rebuilding some > Iraqi airports for free recently so we don't have a slow 3,000 sortie > rate in future attacks. We also now have the Kuwaiti airports. It also means that Saddam can get away with a certain degree of foot dragging and nose thumbing. He gets crushed if he does much of it, but he will do all he thinks he can. The bit about the airports has to worry the $#!% out of Saddam if he has any sense. I hope we rip them up again as we leave though; let them build up their own country, brick by brick, with no help from us. I still say we stopped 1-2 days too soon. > Actually, I think destroying the tanks is a dumb idea. We should > have carted them all off for target practice. I know we are carting > some of them off, but I can't understand why we didn't take them all. We should, but they are heavy and bulky. It may not be worth it in the long run except as scrap steel of questionable quality. Once we know all there is to find out by examining a number of them, it would be cheaper and easier to build mockups for target practice. Shooting at the actual armor plate of a T-72 should be instructive though. I heard an interesting theory recently. The Soviets wanted so badly to avert a ground war and shorten one if it did happen, because they made most of the stuff Saddam would use, and they didn't want the relatively poor quality of the arms to become widely known. The Soviet economy is in bad shape, and arms are one of their best selling exports. Simply put, the ground war was bad for business. The intensive war reporting was one long negative commercial for the stuff they still hope to sell in the region and elsewhere. > I don't know. But it is worth noting that his troops were afraid to > use chemical weapons against us. They were afraid we would respond > in kind. They were also afraid of the effects of their own gas floating back across them. This happened during the Iran/Iraq war with disturbing effect. His troops were pretty much unprotected against this sort of thing. The wind blew the wrong way for a lot of the time, and it switched a lot too. Risky business. The time that we spent in artilary range but far enough away that they might chance it was very short, and their ability to tell when we were/would be there had been blown away long before. > It sounds like Basra has just fallen and troops are going from > Basra to Baghdad. Saddam may fall within days. I hope so. I hear that the governor of the Basra district was Saddam's son and that he has been killed in the revolt there. The remnants of the Republican Guards are fighting on Saddam's side, but they are probably outnumbered. The march on Baghdad will be severely impeded or stopped oughtright if 1/4 of Saddam's original troop strength is still intact and chooses to fight for him. I too think that Saddam may die or flee in the next week or so. If it happens it will be because a great many of his troops as well as the civilians turn on him and join the opposition revolt. This could easily happen. My response: I believe just Qatar, Baharain, UAE, and Oman are gulf states. Kuwait and maybe Saudi Arabia may also be. "It also means that Saddam can get away with a certain degree of foot dragging and nose thumbing. He gets crushed if he does much of it, but he will do all he thinks he can." Well, he doesn't seem to be dragging his feet. I think he wants us out of his country so our presence stops promoting rebellions. "I hope we rip them up again as we leave though; let them build up their own country, brick by brick, with no help from us." Airports are cheap to rebuild. "I still say we stopped 1-2 days too soon." We stopped shooting only hours before Saddam was about to accept all 12 U.N. Resolutions. We looked like good guys by beating him to the punch. I agree that destroying some more tanks would have been nice, especially the 250 near Basra that were used to crush the Basra rebellion. "We should, but they are heavy and bulky." I doubt there were more than 500 intact tanks that needed to be shipped. "Shooting at the actual armor plate of a T-72 should be instructive though." I think the T-72s were the only tanks we made a practice of not destroying. "Simply put, the ground war was bad for business. The intensive war reporting was one long negative commercial for the stuff they still hope to sell in the region and elsewhere." True, Soviet and Chinese weapons are no longer in demand. "They were also afraid of the effects of their own gas floating back across them. This happened during the Iran/Iraq war with disturbing effect." All this is true, but I was still surprised they didn't use them. "I hear that the governor of the Basra district was Saddam's son and that he has been killed in the revolt there. The remnants of the Republican Guards are fighting on Saddam's side, but they are probably outnumbered." For now, the Republican Guard is doing well because the opposition is disorganized. But considering that 24 towns in north, central, and south Iraq are currently under rebel control, anything could happen. Remember that food supplies are continuing to diminish because the economic embargo is still on. This can easily cause a full scale revolt. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > I believe just Qatar, Baharain, UAE, and Oman are gulf states. > Kuwait and maybe Saudi Arabia may also be. O.K. In that case, the support for the PLO by these states may be less vigorous than I was saying. Kuwait will probably think long and hard before doing it anyway. > Well, he doesn't seem to be dragging his feet. I think he wants us > out of his country so our presence stops promoting rebellions. I hope like everything that the rebellions don't stop before Saddam is ousted. Saddam has done much less obstructing on our demands than I expected, but he is back to his old tricks with his own people. Control at all costs; the bloodier the better. > Airports are cheap to rebuild. True, but I don't want to leave him ANYTHING we can help. If it costs us ten times as much to destroy them as it costs them to rebuild them, let's do it. Especially since they are the ones closest to Kuwait. > We stopped shooting only hours before Saddam was about to accept all > 12 U.N. Resolutions. We looked like good guys by beating him to the > punch. I agree that destroying some more tanks would have been nice, > especially the 250 near Basra that were used to crush the Basra > rebellion. We needed to destroy some more tanks as you say, especially that 250. More than that, we needed to deliver the death blow to Saddam's prestige among his supporters. We needed to take Basra or Baghdad. This would put the obvious lie to Saddam's claims of glorious victories. If our troops had marched through one of his principal cities while he hid in a bunker or a neighborhood, it would have forced even the most fanatical of his supporters to realize that they had been sold out royally. We wouldn't have looked like such bad guys, and Saddam would have been forced to publically cry UNCLE. The Iraqi opposition needed to hear that. The world needed to hear that. I wanted to hear that. Saddam would have been made to look weak, and we would have looked all the stronger. Strength is respected there. I think we would have gained more than we lost by doing it. > I doubt there were more than 500 intact tanks that needed to be > shipped. Who knows really without going into Baghdad and northern Iraq in force? We should have taken some of them, but it may not have been worth the trouble to take even 500. I'm sure this was considered. Maybe the Soviets were worried we would let the news people look some over or that they would do so without permission. Then the quality of their stuff would be dragged out for all to see, the poor quality that is. If so, we may have given them assurance that we would leave them in exchange for their shuting up about stopping the fighting prematurely. Not likely, but who knows. > I think the T-72s were the only tanks we made a practice of not > destroying. Why? I can't think of a good reason. They were Saddam's best and therefore the best targets. We should have singled them out for special attention. > "They were also afraid of the effects of their own gas floating back > across them. This happened during the Iran/Iraq war with disturbing > effect." > > All this is true, but I was still surprised they didn't use them. I was too. What does Saddam care how many of his people are hurt or killed as long as he gets something to point to to say that he hurt us? Look at his one little raid on the ghost town for an example. > For now, the Republican Guard is doing well because the opposition is > disorganized. But considering that 24 towns in north, central, and > south Iraq are currently under rebel control, anything could happen. > Remember that food supplies are continuing to diminish because the > economic embargo is still on. This can easily cause a full scale > revolt. We should keep it on until Saddam is out of power. That is the only lever we have left ourselves unless he does something really radical and stupid. It wouldn't hurt us too much if some of the rebels were to get fed on the sly by our troops before we pulled them all out. It will take us a while to move them all, and well fed rebels have better morale and it makes it easier to recruit more rebels too. One more thing, this kind of help will never come back to haunt us. MREs may not be the tastiest food arount, but they aren't bad enough to use as weapons either. They are sure to beat anything available in Iraq for a long time too. I love to watch the homecoming scenes on CNN. They warm my heart so much. We have finally put the spiteful Vietnam thing behind us. Our troops are coming home, and they are heros every one. Let's give the last one home the same reception the first ones are getting. America is beautiful. God bless her!!! My response: "I hope like everything that the rebellions don't stop before Saddam is ousted." Originally I thought this was going to happen. But because the Baath party has stuck with Saddam, and since the rebels now control most of Iraq, I expect both Saddam and the Baath party to go. Iraq will be a democracy one year from now. (The rebels are too divided to set up a one party system.) I hope that kill Taraq Aziz in the takeover; today on CNN, Saddam admitted that lots of government officials have already been killed by the rebels. "True, but I don't want to leave him ANYTHING we can help. If it costs us ten times as much to destroy them as it costs them to rebuild them, let's do it. Especially since they are the ones closest to Kuwait." I would still prefer to leave the airports intact as a little goodwill gesture and in case we want to use them again in the near future. "We needed to destroy some more tanks as you say, especially that 250. More than that, we needed to deliver the death blow to Saddam's prestige among his supporters. We needed to take Basra or Baghdad." While this could have been true, as pointed out by the Wall Street Journal, at this point it looks like Saddam is going to be overthrown, so Bush's gamble at stopping the war when he did is going to pay off. If we had taken Baghdad, we would have been forced to run the country for a few years, this would have been a big pain and would only have been worth it if we thought that Saddam was going to maintain his hold on power. Now that it looks like Saddam will be replaced by a democracy without our running the country and possibly ticking off all the Arab world, Bush's gamble looks real good. "Strength is respected there." I agree, the Arabs now respect us quite a bit. The analysts were all wrong about the Arab reaction to a show of strength. "If so, we may have given them assurance that we would leave them in exchange for their shuting up about stopping the fighting prematurely. Not likely, but who knows." No, the reason is that we consider the tanks a piece of junk and didn't want to bear the cost of shipping. I still would have taken them though. They at least would have uplifted morale during target practice. "> I think the T-72s were the only tanks we made a practice of not > destroying. Why? I can't think of a good reason. They were Saddam's best and therefore the best targets. We should have singled them out for special attention." We aren't destroying them, we are taking them home as spoils of war. "What does Saddam care how many of his people are hurt or killed as long as he gets something to point to to say that he hurt us?" Saddam may have been concerned that Bush would go nuclear. "It wouldn't hurt us too much if some of the rebels were to get fed on the sly by our troops before we pulled them all out." So far, we have provided small arms as well as some food to the rebels. Iran is also providing small arms. Our biggest assistance has been to prohibit chemical weapons and to maintain the embargo. Bush seems to be moving to prohibit helicopter gunships as well and he has strongly indicated that enemy fixed wing craft have now been prohibited. (Iraq asked for permission to reorganize their remaining 60 combat aircraft and Bush told them if they flew, they would be shot down.) By the way, the latest Saddam blunder was to continue to move troops away from the Kurds even after the war was over. He pulled out 7,000 troops 1 week after the end of the war and moved them to Baghdad for instance. Last I heard, the Kurds claimed that they controlled 95% of Kurdistan and witnesses saw them take control of the main Turkey/Iraq border crossing and put up their flag. Now if the 8 million Kurds in Turkey decide to cross over and help the 4 million Kurds in Iraq in their fight... Also, despite the 250 T-72 tanks near Basra that I mentioned, Saddam has never been able to hold Basra. The only explanation is that he most be having a lot of troop defections. The Republican Guard should have been able to hold this city considering that most of the Guard was based near it. Eric Klien From shr@clemson.clemson.edu/Steve Robinson: > Originally I thought this was going to happen. But because the Baath > party has stuck with Saddam, and since the rebels now control most of > Iraq, I expect both Saddam and the Baath party to go. Iraq will be a > democracy one year from now. (The rebels are too divided to set up a > one party system.) I hope that kill Taraq Aziz in the takeover; > today on CNN, Saddam admitted that lots of government officials have > already been killed by the rebels. Optimistic thoughts, given the track record in the region. I hope you're right though. We could just as easily see the Kurds and the Shiites battling it out once the Baath party is out of the way. Cooperation and compromise are not the standard political tactics in use in that region. Pipe bombs, poison gas, and bloody coups are more their speed. I have no personal feelings about Aziz. He's no prize, that's for sure, but he is Saddam's tool. I'm more concerned with the puppeteer than the puppet. > I would still prefer to leave the airports intact as a little > goodwill gesture and in case we want to use them again in the near > future. Goodwill gesture to whom? We have no clear idea of who will be controlling those fields in six months to a year. Blow 'em up! If we need them later, *we* can rebuild them. As you have pointed out, airstrips are cheap. We should, however, only destroy them as we leave. > "More than that, we needed to deliver the death blow to Saddam's > prestige among his supporters. We needed to take Basra or Baghdad." > > While this could have been true, as pointed out by the Wall Street > Journal, at this point it looks like Saddam is going to be > overthrown, so Bush's gamble at stopping the war when he did is going > to pay off. If we had taken Baghdad, we would have been forced to > run the country for a few years, this would have been a big pain and > would only have been worth it if we thought that Saddam was going to > maintain his hold on power. Now that it looks like Saddam will be > replaced by a democracy without our running the country and possibly > ticking off all the Arab world, Bush's gamble looks real good. I don't get the Wall Street Journal, but it is flattering to find that we think alike on this. You are correct in saying that holding Baghdad would have involved a lot of cumbersome political, diplomatic, and logistical baggage. Basra would not have been as much trouble. Once a group of rebels that we like cropped up there, we could leave *them* to govern the swamp. The goal wouldn't have been so much the aquisition of territory as the further humiliation of Saddam. This wouldn't be a Vietnam-like fight in and walk out operation because we would have a very clear goal in mind, and we would get full value for the effort. > No, the reason is that we consider the tanks a piece of junk and > didn't want to bear the cost of shipping. I still would have taken > them though. They at least would have uplifted morale during target > practice. Well, I said myself that I considered it unlikely and that the shipping cost was the main reason. Morale is pretty good as it is. > Saddam may have been concerned that Bush would go nuclear. Not likely even under chemical attack as long as it wasn't a massive chemical attack against a major civilian population center. An example would be several chemical laden scuds successfully landing in Tel Aviv or Riahd. Our more likely response (and the American people *would* have condoned it) was a chemical-for-chemical retaliation. We have found out though that Saddam is not as astute as we had at first believed. He may well have worried about nukes. It is hard to believe that the threat of chemical use against his troops would have bothered a cretin like Saddam at all. > So far, we have provided small arms as well as some food to the > rebels. Iran is also providing small arms. Our biggest assistance > has been to prohibit chemical weapons and to maintain the embargo. > Bush seems to be moving to prohibit helicopter gunships as well and > he has strongly indicated that enemy fixed wing craft have now been > prohibited. (Iraq asked for permission to reorganize their remaining > 60 combat aircraft and Bush told them if they flew, they would be > shot down.) Food is fine, but I wouldn't give even the rebels so much as a slingshot from outside. Help them aquire Iraqi weapons already in the theatre? A very cautious maybe. Yes to prohibiting chemical weapons. #& yes to maintaining the embargo! All aircraft of any type from fighters to kites should be obliterated on sight even if it means arriving after the plane lands and destroying it on the ground. If we can demonstrate that it went up at all, we should trash it. > By the way, the latest Saddam blunder was to continue to move troops > away from the Kurds even after the war was over. He pulled out 7,000 > troops 1 week after the end of the war and moved them to Baghdad for > instance. Last I heard, the Kurds claimed that they controlled 95% > of Kurdistan and witnesses saw them take control of the main > Turkey/Iraq border crossing and put up their flag. Now if the 8 > million Kurds in Turkey decide to cross over and help the 4 million > Kurds in Iraq in their fight... Schwartzkoph described Saddam's military prowess far better than I ever could. His assessment will serve as my response to this one. > Also, despite the 250 T-72 tanks near Basra that I mentioned, Saddam > has never been able to hold Basra. The only explanation is that he > most be having a lot of troop defections. The Republican Guard > should have been able to hold this city considering that most of the > Guard was based near it. Who knows? Maybe even these "politically reliable" soldiers have found their brains at last. As a final note, I was playing with one of my Christmas presents today. It is the Selectronics WordFinder 220. (Both Selectronics and WordFinder are trademarks.) This thing is great! It has hundreds of thousands of spellings and cross-referenced definitions arranged as a thesaurus. It fits in a shirt pocket with plenty of room to spare. In fact my pocket could hold two. Guess what I like best though? I just discovered this a few minutes ago. While it does list a great many proper names, Saddam is not on the list. Guess what the first possible corrected spelling it offers is? "Sodomy"! That's great. I think I'll show that to about two dozen people before I get tired of it. Bye for now. Steve My response: "We could just as easily see the Kurds and the Shiites battling it out once the Baath party is out of the way." I really think that the Kurds and Shiites will be too tired to kill each other once Saddam is out. My only question is will the Kurds and Shiites win against the Baath party? I think they will, but... By the way, part of my reasoning is that the Kurds have mostly just flown the Iraqi flag in battle, saying that they want to work with their fellow Iraqis, not just the Kurds. There have been some other little signs of rational reasoning among the Kurds and Shiites based in Iraq. Eric Klien Publisher comments: Quote is from p. 39 of "One Up On Wall Street" by Peter Lynch. ****************************************************************************** To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers, and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com. ****************************************************************************** Up