licentious radio

Saturday, February 1, 2003
[9:03:35 PM]

The New York Times has an article about the US strategy for invading Iraq. Are we supposed to believe that this is accurate? Seems like the answer is 'yes'. That is, we know what military units have been called up, and what they could most reasonably do. The article doesn't go in to huge detail, but it fits with the rumblings we've heard -- Rumsfeld didn't want an old-fashioned, plodding invasion, he wanted everything to go fast.

So why not just drop US soldiers into place -- capture airfields, oilfields, dams, and whatever. Once they capture the airfield, fly planes in with supplies. (Sounds a little like firebases in Vietnam?) And don't worry about fuel for the tanks, just get a lot of trucks to carry it.

Frankly, this seems like a scenario to give the Iraqis hope that fighting can succeed. Iraq wins if Americans get tired of hearing about casualties and stop the war. Iraqis will decide to fight based on *their* belief about whether the US will abandon the war if there are too many casualties. The US hasn't been willing to take significant casualties since Vietnam. The Iraqis could -- reasonably -- think that the US would stop fighting if more than a handful of dead American soldiers get killed.

After all, Bush has never made a case that we should invade Iraq despite the casualties. It has never been: "If things don't go well, 5,000 US soldiers could die". All we hear is that Saddam is bad, and we're not supposed to think about casualties at all.

So it's plausible *Iraqis* could think they could force Bush to run away, like Reagan ran away from Lebanon, and like Bush has essentially given up on nation-building in Afghanistan.

Is it plausible that Iraqis would think they could inflict significant casualties? Certainly if the US tried to fight door-to-door in Baghdad and Basra, it could go on for a long time, with lots of casualties. And if the Iraqi military is actually willing to use chemical and biological weapons -- that's *why* we're invading, after all -- the casualty rates could be very high.

We already know the Iraqi army can't stand up to ours. But could it morph into a guerilla army? Or just leave the fighting to the Republican Guard and send the regular army home (and hand out the rifles just before the US takes control of an area to make future "nation-building" harder???).

My point is that Rumsfeld's strategy may give hope to the Iraqis.... Scattering US troops around increases their exposure if something doesn't go exactly right. And there's only one road from Kuwait for the fuel trucks to drive up. Saddam *might* not wait until the massive bombing starts before lighting oil wells and flooding marshes. An old-fashioned invasion is a lot less risky.

Should I, as a citizen, believe that Rumsfeld knows better than the generals who've studied and actually fought wars? It looks to me like Rumsfeld's approach *increases* the likelihood that Iraq will resist, and *increases* the risk of casualties in any fighting.

[8:03:50 PM]
Today is Day 502 Bush's hunt for Osama Bin Laden -- Dead or Alive.

[7:56:45 PM]
Maureen Dowd spanks the Bushies again: 'Colin Powell finally has the goods on the evil dictator.

'He has spy satellite photos of trucks pulling up to buildings in the outlaw regime when inspectors aren't around, lots of bustling activity around those metal rods for the nukes threatening civilization.

'Mr. Powell has all the evidence he needs to convince the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that we are justified in making a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.

'Only one hitch: President Bush doesn't want to attack North Korea; he wants to contain North Korea.

'He doesn't want to contain Iraq, he told reporters on Friday, because "after September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned."

'Except when it comes to North Korea, where Condoleezza Rice has proposed a tailored containment that can "check Kim Jong II." '

Is this reasonable criticism? Should we believe that behind the scenes the Bushies have played every card perfectly? That seems completely implausible. Unless the Bushies *wanted* to provoke North Korea.

[5:37:53 PM]
This was STS-107. Two losses in 107 tries. The shuttle is not reliable enough. We already knew that, of course. Sigh.

[5:16:07 PM]
Several thousand people showed up for the peace rally in Palo Alto today. It was reasonably pleasant, though the wind was cold.

I had an *excellent* espresso from a guy in a bus. This guy says he changes his grind based on the humidity, and also the amount pressure he applies when tamping down the ground coffee. Then there were tricks to the steam. I always thought you just push a button, and wondered why there is such a huge difference in the quality of the result.

While I was sitting around waiting for the march to start, a girl -- maybe twelve years old -- next to me made a sign that said "Peace out, bro!" I'd like to think that Americans have always been peace-loving and good-hearted, in the main. This peace movement has broader, deeper support than earlier peace movements because we don't just automatically believe the government's story any more -- and because Bush & Company have particularly low credibility.

[4:43:41 PM]
Weblogs and news....

CNN notes: Should a shuttle steer in the wrong direction as it re-enters the atmosphere, going at many times the speed of sound, it could fly out of control and break apart due to the extreme stress, according to science experts.

But blogger-deluxe Dave Winer notes: Andrew Juby: "My roommate has access to Goddard Space Flight Center's Orbital Information group server. He can pull up data on just about any non-classified orbiting object. We checked it this morning and pulled up some data on Columbia, and ran it by the aerospace major across the hall. It appears that at about 2 or 3AM, as Columbia was into its descent, it pulled up."

Now, "some guy's roommate" isn't likely to pass the "three sources" test for journalism, so it's more like rumor milling. We saw a lot of rumors September 11, 2001. Some were clearly wrong. Others were clearly right. Others were just ignored in the real media, and we're left wondering if it was a cover-up or not. Bureaucracies are known for trying to squelch the flow of information that reflects negatively on them. (Of course, we do that, too, but we aren't your government.)

But you would think between weblogs and journalists we could put stories together quickly.