Dear Zac, thanks for your money.

[davywavy]

Some of you may remember the brief fear that there was going to be a war with Iraq this year. Indeed, most people seemed suckered by the scaremongering of the media and genuinely believed that Bush and Blair were going to kick off on Iraq any second.

Most people, that was, except me.
Some of you may remember that back in September I was willing to bet money that there wouldn't be a war in 2002, and unless something changes in the next 24 hours, I reckon my money is safe.
In the light of that, I'm calling in the five pounds that applez bet me here

To paraphrase The Princess Bride, there are two classic erros, the first is never start a land war in Asia, the second is never argue with a Wade when there's money of the line.

So why didn't I think there was going to be a war when everyone else did? Principally, because I didn't believe what it said in the news. Newpaper editors long ago discovered that if your headline is "WAR BY TUESDAY!!!!", yuo will sell more papers than you will if your headline is "FLUFFY BUNNIES FROLIC ON THE HILLSIDE!!!!". As such, it's not in their interest to print anything about there not being a war.
Instead, I looked at the lessons of history and the logistics of fighting an invasive desert war and decided that it just wasn't going to happen.
In fact, I'm confident enough that I'm prepared to offer another bet: Five pounds, or to you, Mr Appleton, double or quits.

There may be bombing of Iraq and special forces deployed in the region to mission-specific targets. However, in the first quarter of 2003, there will not be a war against Iraq in the usually accepted sense of the word (i.e. large scale commitment of invasive ground forces, and British Tommy showing Johnny foreigner what for).

Actually I think this is a shame, as Saddam really does have to go. And after him, we could go and sort out Mugabe. However, it just isn't going to happen.

Any takers?

Comments

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

Bunnies frolicking? Where?

Hiya all ... sorry for my late response

[applez.livejournal.com]

First, an article of interest and of proximal relation to this thread...

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1511812

---

Now:

I must say, depending on what one means by 'bunny' ... one could sell a lot of papers about frockling ones. :-)

On the *new* bet:

You said: "In fact, I'm confident enough that I'm prepared to offer another bet: Five pounds, or to you, Mr Appleton, double or quits.

There may be bombing of Iraq and special forces deployed in the region to mission-specific targets. However, in the first quarter of 2003, there will not be a war against Iraq in the usually accepted sense of the word (i.e. large scale commitment of invasive ground forces, and British Tommy showing Johnny foreigner what for)."

To the salient points, you bet 10 quid (in my case) that there will be no invasive deployment of large numbers of forces into Iraq with no specified end date. I'll be generous and add the caveat of an end point for the bet of Spring 2004 - and *accept* this bet.

My reasons for believing that *there will* be an invasion by 'Coalition' forces (i.e. mainly American forces, complimented by UK, possibly French, and certainly some token NATO & Gulf 'ally' forces) of Iraq this year are:

1) One carrier battle group usually suffices for a sabre-rattle, and in the case of an already heightened military situation in a place like the Gulf, 3 usually suffices...but the US is sending *6.* Not to mention HMS Ark Royal, HMS Ocean and whatever the French choose to send (the new Charles DeGaulle perhaps?) not otherwise occupied in the Cote d'Ivoire.

2) The US now has about 1 division of ground forces in the Gulf (iirc; here's a resource of value - http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_key_maps/html/mbu.stm ), which is at least twice the normal ground force strength required for a sabre rattle or was customarily necessary to enforce the militant blockade of Iraq this past decade. By division I mean approximately 15,000 ground troops which excludes the 3000 Special Forces and better-trained Marines in Djoubouti, plus Air Force and Naval personnel.

Moreover, another division especially trained in desert warfare (many veterans of the first war) is already en route, and another of reservists has already been called up and is training now. This is *a very serious* budgetary expenditure, atop the existing ground force costs in the Afghani and Korean theatres.

3) Bases in Oman have stockpiled for another 26K troops.

4) Diego Garcia already has 17 supply ships anchored with M1A3 tanks and other ground logistics aboard, with more on their way. Granted, they haven't landed yet, but this forward placement is a very serious commitment since it cuts into training time. I also generally believe that one doesn't bother sending these 80+ ton behemouths if one doesn't intend to use them.

5) And this is just garnered from publically-accessible information. David you may consider further proof of a bluff rather than a necessary invasion, but as much as this US President may declare a preference for peace over war the fact is that ...

6) He stands to face *far too many* domestic political and economic challenges if he cannot get a war launched. He really does need this war, there is absolutely no other purpose for his 'axis of evil' speech. Virtually every facet of this President's domestic popularity is linked to war, and now most invested in a war in Iraq. Without war he's a corporate criminal escaped prosecution, with it he's a 'Good Ol' Boy Patriot.'

---

Tangentially, I think his frequent cock ups re: North Korea is telling. No nation, I think, should be without nuclear weapons, it's the *only way* to be both taken seriously, and for you to really tell the US to bugger off (and have that wish respected in the immediate). The US, I think, is at its heart a cowardly country - it will not attack anyone who can actually fight back.

---

In any event, as a civil servant whose contract includes 'other duties as assigned,' I wonder how long an embroilment of ground forces in downtown Baghdad will make me the 'strategic personnel reserve.' :-)

I would be happy to be proven wrong on all counts, but I don't think I am.

---

Just noticed the time reference...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Whoops, just noticed your time reference.

First Quarter of 2003 huh? Hmmm, you are probably right and I only agree because it's probably a bit too soon for the forces preparation.

However, I'll be a good sport and keep to the bet.

:-)

---

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Also, you may easily write-off all that media scaremongering as so much fluff, but the political reality of that much engineering of the American public at this point is that any 'commander in chief' who doesn't exercise such a military expectation is taking on massive risk.

For Bush's political cleverness, I'm not sure he can successfully pull of the "I've brought us back from the brink, congratulate me John Q Public, aren't I such a fab statesman?" Ike did it, Clinton did it, and Nixon tried his B-52 variant ... but it is a *very* perilous road with a public as agitated as this one is.

Again, I think it just goes to show what idiot gamblers these politicians are

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

*g*

Of course; people wouldn't go into politics if they weren't into high-stakes gambling :)

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, I never makes bets on anything where I don't think the odds are heavily in my favour - except when it comes to tech stocks, where I remain the eternal buffer.

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Right then, let me pose for you a much more even counter bet for the same 10 quid amount:

I propose that the United States will withdraw its large military forces from the Korean Peninsula (leaving a token or regional remainder, as with Germany) in the next 10 years.

I think both the combination of North Korea's dire poverty and the much more diplomatic-oriented South Korean view towards the North (which seems to cross party lines), and the growing attitude against the US military presence in the South (that it is more a liability than an asset for the South's future) has set the stage for an endgame.

I personally doubt the scarewarmongery of the media, since in the case of the Koreas, all participants in an open confligration have far more to lose than they have to gain. Even a 'going down in a blaze of glory' model doesn't really seem to apply for North Korea since the utter atomic dissolution of its existence would need something to trade up for - that something hasn't come into being.

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This I don't know anything about - I'll have to read up on Korean History before I committed to anything.

Re: Just noticed the time reference...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Then do so and accept a bet you know you can't refuse. :-)

One suggested reading:

'Kempei Tai, A History of the Japanese Secret Service' by Richard Deacon (you can probably find an inexpensive copy at Oxfam or the like) ... and see how the Japanese won themselves a Korean colony on almost pure guile alone!

From this book I remember a rather neat strategy they pulled ... letting the poorly equipped and starving (to be entirely frank) Korean force defeat a Japanese force with an incredibly large haul of rice. The Japanese calculated that it was worth the cost in feeding the Koreans if the Koreans were to de facto adopt the logistical challenge of moving so much food north, with the invading Japanese military following close behind.

---

Otherwise any number of MacArthur biographies and explicitly Korean policy books are available...