As I write this on Wed, 2003 Mar 19 at 11:06 UTC (6:06 US Eastern
Standard Time), the BBC is reporting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2863065.stm
that the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix,
... said he doubted Iraq would use them [chemical, biological, or
nuclear weapons] even as a last resort because it would turn world
opinion in favour of the US.
on the other hand, that US army commanders have told US soldiers
... to expect hard battles, possibly involving weapons of mass
destruction.
So the question is whose anthropology is correct?
* Do Saddam Hussein and his government wish to be seen in histories
a thousand years hence as mighty Moslems who preferred to die at
the hands of infidels rather than use a fearsome sword? Or
* Do Saddam Hussein and his government think that the US is fearful
of casualties, both of its soldiers and of foreign civilians, and
will agree to a ceasefire to prevent many deaths, once shown that
they will occur?
The argument for the former expectation is that Saddam Hussein, the
other people in his family, and his government have decided that they
can gain their ends (either death or victory) using conventional
methods, such as city fighting.
The arguments for the latter expectation are three fold:
First, that Iraq is in a `use them or lose them' position: if it does
not soon use any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that it now
has, the US will seize them or destroy them. The presumes that US
spying is extensive and accurate and that Iraq still has such weapons.
Second, that Iraq gains power by killing Shia civilians in Kuwait and
other places, and by hindering US port logistics. The model here is
that of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which was a military loss for
the Vietnamese communists, but a political win.
Third, that Saddam Hussein and his government are mis-interpreting the
Bush administration's stubborness; that they are like the military
government of Argentina who invaded the British Falkland Islands in
1982: the generals thought that the then British goverment under
Margaret Thatcher was wimpy and that it would complain vociferously,
but back down and permit Argentina to take over the Malvinas. The
other examples here are that under US President Reagan, the US pulled
out of the Lebanon after a truck bomb killed several hundred soldiers,
and that under US President Clinton, the US pulled out of Somalia.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
