But Saudi Arabia? The country the 9/11 Hijackers came from? No, we won't bother them. Not only do they have oil, they have F-15s and M1A1s. Wonder where they got those.

I'm no longer able to rationalize any support for this country I live in.

Now, in the particular case of this administration, considering that they appear to have entirely base motives for everything is pretty much reasonable, but there are after all perfectly good reasons not to attack Saudi Arabia, starting with the presence of the Two Holy Mosques and continuing on to the economic consequences of an interuption in their oil production.

One could even, should one be of a suspicious character, consider that having control of Iraq's oil production might be regarded as a necessary prerequist for an attack on Saudi Arabia, as a means of limiting the worst-case economic dislocation.

It is when the visible majority is supporting that government. It is when the standard means of changing that government has been subverted. It is when that Government is flying that country's flag over lands that it is conquering.

Graydon, I live in the land of "You are either with us, or against us." Or US. Either way.

And if you think the presence of Mecca or Medina matters to this bunch, you really need to rethink that. And, you know, if SA oil got knocked offline, why, they'd have to buy Texas oil again!

But that would involve picking a fight with someone who might win. Shrub won't do that.

MKK

I mean, was it "Do you support the war?" or "Now that we've actually invaded and have taken over much of the country, should we finish the job so Saddam doesn't take revenge on all the provinces we invaded?"

The business with Syria and the night-vision goggles is complete BS. You can buy those on Ebay, including Russian military issue, direct from Moscow.

Everytime I hear something like that, I want to kick Rumsfeld in the shins.

Sometimes I think it would be really ironic if after all was said and done we never did find any weapons of mass destruction over there.

War is a process of co-operation; it's a test of the ability of your side to gang up compared to the ability of their side to gang up.

The better you gang up, the freer your choice space is -- the less you have to argue, and the more stuff and *kinds* of stuff you can get done.

In an ideal situation, everyone involved is aware of, personally invested in, and intelligent about The Plan, which includes the belief that they won't be censured from departing from it should the actual (as distinct from the expected) conditions warrant that in pursuit of the objective; it's only deviating from the object that gets you censured.

It's relatively easy to get this in relatively small forces operating in relative isolation; Nelson's 'band of brothers' is the naval example. What you do *not* get is this sort of thing happening in large forces without great and consistent principled (it has to be principled; you have to not censure people who make you look stupid) support for it.

In a case where the actual objective is concealed from public debate and military planners, where the effort of co-operation is disdained as weakness, and questioning the plan is grounds for censure (as it must be, if you don't reveal the objectives), the choice space available is going to be much, much smaller than it looks, _even to the people giving the orders_.

Possession of the predominance of force can still result in victory, but it's going to be expensive, compared to what it might have been if the effort of co-operation -- even within one's own complex of forces -- had been expended.

The latest right-wing talk radio spin (heard tonight) is that Saddam is hiding them in Syria.

(Or France ...)

Then Iraq.

Then Ubekistan.

Our goddamnd military's being run by someone who's playing Risk. Poorly.

Just one thing. There is no way in hell a British governmetn will send troops for any of those wars, not if it wants to be re-elected. Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned over the issue, has a piece in today's Sunday Mirror arguing that we should pull out now.

All we have left are our troops, which are extraordinarily good, and our legendary productive capacity. Our troops can be wasted if they're misused, though; history's full of instances of crack troops that were needlessly sacrificed by blundering commanders. Meanwhile, one of the things our national industrial engine runs on is money, and Georgie Boy and his cronies are screwing up the economy every bit as fast as they're screwing up our international relations and military standing.

That for everyone who said there's no difference between Gore and Bush -- or who thought it would be a good idea to elect a bad President, if it meant some of the voters were thereby driven into the arms of their own little faction next time around.

"In an ideal situation, everyone involved is aware of, personally invested in, and intelligent about The Plan, which includes the belief that they won't be censured from departing from it should the actual (as distinct from the expected) conditions warrant that in pursuit of the objective; it's only deviating from the object that gets you censured."

I have to confess, I was unavoidably reminded of the tight-lipped mob of vigilantes in Woody Allen's SHADOWS AND FOG, which I saw again on cable this weekend.

More context?