Sunday, March 30, 2003

Omar Sharif - Desert Culture - The Book - Judaism, Christianity and Islam I have been thinking about  the great religions of the desert, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Why are they so legalistic? And why, if they are so close in root, in code and in worldview can't we get on?. Then I recalled a great scene from Lean's film Lawrence of Arabia. It is an early scene in the film. TEL is making his first trip in the desert with a guide to find the rebels. He and the guide are stopped by a well. In the far distance, the horizon shimmers in the heat, Lean shows us a black speck. For minutes, no fast cutting then, the speck grows. Suddenly the guide recognizes who it is and panics but is too late to get to his camel. A shot rings out and the guide drops dead. TEL awaits his fate as Omar Sharif rides up and scowls at him. "Why did you kill him? We were only drinking from the well. He was a man!" TEL/O'Toole asks (or words to that effect). Sharif replies, "The well is everything and he was nothing" He then rides off leaving TEL to his fate. The guide was the wrong tribe and knew that he was not allowed to use the well as it "belonged to Sharif's tribe. TEL was an outsider who did  not count. I wonder if the reliance on the Book in these three religions comes from the need to be very clear in a desert about who owns what in a world where resources are very scarce?  Maybe there is something about this environment that has caused these three religions to be so concerned with a "Book" which codifies every act in life. Maybe in the larger scheme of things, we tend to see other members of the Book as being close enough to know better and hence tend to see "them" as enemies at our well? Is this why we fight each other with such bitterness and passion? 5:51:35 PM    comment []

The Official line! Gulf Gen. Denies Asking for More Troops. The commander of the U.S. war in Iraq denied Sunday that he had asked the Pentagon for more troops before launching the invasion but sidestepped a question about whether the war might last into the summer. [Associated Press war headlines via GoUpstate.com] 2:20:23 PM    comment []

I Find John the most coherent thinker on the war today = here are his thoughts for the day Plan B.  I took some time tonight to reread Liddell Hart's (one of my favorite military thinkers) analysis of the campaigns of Belisarius (a Byzantine general that fought some of the most brilliant and bloodless campaigns in history).  It is great for out of the box thinking.  My question:  what would Belisarius do in the place of Rumsfeld and Franks?  He would first identify the threat and then devise an economical means to eliminate it (economical in that there is as little fighting as possible).   If the threat is that Iraq is able to fund terrorism and fund the development of weapons of mass destruction, then the common basis for the threats is his ability to fund.  How does he fund these threats?  Obviously, oil revenues.  He cheats on the UN oil for food program.  So, what would Belisarius do if he was leading US forces? He would take the oil.  A quick and limited military strike could have done that.  The oil would then be put under a joint US/UN control and the funds would be strictly controlled.  Payments to Turkey and Kuwait would be made for their inconvenience.  Funds for food and medicine would be made and these goods would be shipped to Iraqi authorities.  A slight modification of the plan would enable the creation of autonomous zones for Kurds (including Kirkuk and Iraq's northern oil field) and Shiites (including Basra and Iraq's southern oil field).  This would require a small amount of fighting to clear these cities.  These zones in turn would get access to unrestricted funds.  The rest of a penniless Iraq would be left to Saddam.  In order for Iraq to get the oil back, they would be forced to disarm and undergo social changes that would provide freedoms for Iraqis (effectively, that would require the removal of Saddam).  The first phase would last three years and be renewed annually until the requirements were met. Of course, we could still do this.  It would be even easier to generate change if we did it after we smashed the Republican Guard.  Without the Republican Guard, Saddam wouldn't have any sufficient force to fend off an aggressive guerilla movement or a coup.  Of course, given this strategy, this fight isn't even necessary if a truly bloodless victory is the top requirement.  Remember Liddell's words, "In the case of a state that is seeking not conquest but the maintenance of its security, the aim is fulfilled if the threat be removed -- if the enemy is lead to abandon his purpose." [John Robb's Radio Weblog] 9:33:04 AM    comment []

Rumsfeld 'wanted cheap war'. A US magazine claims US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forced military chiefs to send too small a force to fight Iraq. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition] My friends in the US Army have been telling me this story for months. As I have mentioned previously, having the Secretary in charge is a shift in policy. Before Rumsfeld, the Theatre Commander would have reported to the Chief who would have reported to the President. You don't have to be a psychologist to notice that Rumsfeld is an exceptionally controlling person. You can imagine the kind of arguments that have taken place. My sources tell me that Rumsfeld wanted half the forces in Theatre now and that Franks wanted double. We have therefore the worst of all worlds here - a compromise. What appears to have happened is that there is a split in ideology. Rumsfeld had a view of the fragility of the regime which has turned out to be wrong. He  also believes in the technical aspects of war and in the use of special forces. Had the regime been more fragile he might have been right but they aren't and he has placed all the bet on his idea. So now he and the US are caught. It is a clear lesson that it is not a good idea to bet a number as in roulette in war. You have to have many more options open to you. Real wars have always ended up as slugfests and Rumsfeld does not have the experience to know. Because he is not a soldier he has not had the personal connection to the men in the field. I suspect to him they are statistics. This would not be true if the traditional chain of command had been followed. The military is a family. If you were the Chief, many of the Colonels and up would be your friends and many of the Colonels and down would be the sons and daughters of your friends. You would see them with a different set of eyes - less expendable. Notice how he now talks of "Franks' plan" This is a disgraceful. Yes Franks signed off - he could have resigned but that is not the Army way. The Army way is to follow in the end the civilian lead. Everyone "knows" that this is the Rumsfeld plan and after the story breaks on Monday the steam will build for Rumsfeld's head. I believe that he must go to open up the thinking - if he stays he will meddle to protect himself rather than to do the right thing. The US needs a man at the top who  knows what  he is doing, who knows the people well and who has the trust of the military. We can now see the value of General Marshall in WWII 8:47:59 AM    comment []