[Paleopsych] electile dysfunction

Thu Nov 4 03:53:57 UTC 2004

Steve,
In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the 
majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at 
least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got lost 
and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops. They 
couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is not 
tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a dirt 
magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were cooked 
with they faced it.

Steve Hovland wrote:

>I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will
>become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah
>being the tar baby.
>
We will see.

>
>Lynn may know the numbers better, but
>modern armies have a lot of support troops.
>Even with outsourcing of some functions,
>the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere
>around 75,000.
>
>40,000 are being committed to the battle
>of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving
>every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to
>enemy attack.
>  
>
The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth 
largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable, 
probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a 
country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave.
    Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want 
to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in Fallujah 
and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so it may be 
that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon see.

>The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be
>a tempting target to the other side.  There
>may be a battle in Baghdad even before they
>try to go to Fallujah.
>
>Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah."  The odds
>are they will be attacked while going there,
>and every supply column during the battle will
>also be subject to attack.
>
>In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more
>hiding places for the defenders.  The attacking
>solders have to stand up and run toward an
>enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of
>rubble.  The terrain heavily favors the defenders,
>even if they are outnumbered.  Nothing has
>really changed since Stalingrad.
>  
>
Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the 
civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that 
also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter.  But your point is 
good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers.

>I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day.
>  
>
I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and 
Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The 
LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I 
disapprove.

>We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck.
>The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may 
>be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen,
>is a real problem.  The Euro may well emerge
>as the world's reserve currency.
>  
>
Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would 
never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger!

>I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead
>the way on energy, so that will get worse.  People
>now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay
>their utility bill.  Eventually we will see it in the
>cost of everything as old inventories produced
>with lower-cost energy are used up.
>  
>
Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am 
personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to 
alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to 
with more respect - I hope!

>If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and
>middle- class women who voted for Bush because 
>of his stand on abortion will be the ones who
>will die from back-alley abortions.
>  
>
A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if 
it were, most unlikely,  would only turn the abortion decision back to 
the states. Some states would have it, some would not.  Yours would, 
mine would not.

>Many other middle- and lower-class voters
>who voted for Bush on values, but against
>their own economic interests, will get sick and
>die for lack of national health care, their private
>benefits having expired.
>  
>
Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and 
don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need 
some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a  robust solution, 
since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every 
consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser decisions 
will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate our system 
rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership Society.

>Eventually the pain may get bad enough to
>wake some people up.
>
>Steve Hovland
>www.stevehovland.net
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
>Sent:	Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM
>To:	paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>Subject:	[Paleopsych] electile dysfunction
>
>
>  
>
>>>We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats 
>>>      
>>>
>as the alternative to the Republicans.<<
>
>--If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need
>someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure
>someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn
>apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to
>win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete
>with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there
>will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent
>party can get into the debates and act as a balance.
>As long as war and security issues take precedence
>over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic
>policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal
>level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough
>in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw
>fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of
>his policies) there may be room for an independent
>candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing
>with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain
>ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully
>that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize
>"culture war" Republicans and favor traditional
>economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in
>American culture is going to have to be done without
>government help. We can no longer expect someone
>decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll
>have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots
>change. 
>
>If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights
>agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their
>ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal
>states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana,
>see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the
>country against the fragmenting influence of the
>"culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If
>that means Alabama banning abortion and women
>streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men
>fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the
>freedom to do what they want.
>
>Michael
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
>www.yahoo.com 
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>_______________________________________________
>paleopsych mailing list
>paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041103/67d4fa8d/attachment.html>