March 20, 2007

The Contranomics of Global Jihad

Hatched by Dafydd

So the burning (sorry) question is -- can Iran actually be brought low by mere economics?

The answer is not yet known for certain; but a new wrinkle in the ongoing crisis about Iran's development of nuclear weapons makes the answer to the riddle above seem more and more like "Yes, it can."

What am I talking about? (Does anybody really know what I'm ever talking about?) Yesterday, Russia announced that it was suspending its shipment of low-grade enriched Uranium fuel to Iran -- ostensibly on the grounds that Iran has missed two payments of $25 million to Russia. However, sources say the real reason is that Iran refuses to stop enriching the low-grade fuel at its centrifuge complex at Natanz:

Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials say....

For years, President Bush has been pressing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to cut off help to Iran on the nuclear power plant that Russia is building at Bushehr, in southern Iran. But Mr. Putin has resisted. The project is Tehran’s first serious effort to produce nuclear energy and has been very profitable for Russia.

Recently, however, Moscow and Tehran have been engaged in a public argument about whether Iran has paid its bills, which may explain Russia’s apparent shift. But the ultimatum may also reflect an increasing displeasure and frustration on Moscow’s part with Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium at its vast facility at Natanz.

“We’re not sure what mix of commercial and political motives are at play here,” one senior Bush administration official said in Washington. “But clearly the Russians and the Iranians are getting on each other’s nerves -- and that’s not all bad.”

I maintain that it's impossible to separate the "commercial and political motives," because each drives the other: Russia has a political interest in stopping Iran from being nuclear armed; but that is also an economic interest, because a nuclear Iran would force Russia to deploy more military power to the region to prevent itself being bullied and extorted by Iran. Force projection costs money, especially for a country with inadequate access to the open sea.

Similarly, the better Iran gets at enrichment, the less enrichment it must buy from Russia. Already, the United States has dangled a proposition for Russia to do all the Uranium enrichment for Iran -- at a staggering charge.

But American officials have been trying to create a commercial incentive for Russia to put pressure on Iran. One proposal the Bush administration has endorsed since late 2005 envisions having the Russians enrich Iran’s uranium in Russia. That creates the prospect of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in business for Russia, and a way to ensure that Iran receives only uranium enriched for use in power reactors, instead of for use in weapons.

Iran has rejected those proposals, saying it has the right to enrich uranium on its own territory.

Iran is desperate to develop the ability to enrich their own Uranium in part because they can't afford the fee to have Russia do it... at least not if Iran keeps pouring money down a pair of rat-holes...

  • Why hasn't Iran paid the $50 million in bills it owes Russia? (Iran denies this, but nobody believes them or cares what they say.) They haven't paid because their economy is currently broken -- and headed like the Titanic towards the iceberg.
  • Why is Iran's economy broken? Because they've been spending so much money on two things: nuclear enrichment at Natanz... and global jihadism.

Force projection is dreadfully expensive, even if you call it global jihadism: Iran is supporting Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, the Qods Force in Iraq, a war against Israel a few months ago, assassins all over the world, and Shiite revolutionary movements from Malaysia to Venezuela. But at the same time, the drain on their resources from trying to develop a nuclear "Qods bomb" and buy a delivery system from North Korea, Russia, or Red China has caused Iran to stop investing in its oil infrastructure.

Not investing in oil extraction and gasoline refining is crippling Iran; they must import between 40% and 60% (depending on who is making the estimate) of their gasoline from third-party countries -- who, not surprisingly, charge Iran an arm and a leg and an arm, since they have the mullahs over an oil barrel.

But for the Iranians to return to investing in maintenance and expansion of their oil economy, they would have to cut back on both WMD development and on global jihadism... which their religiously driven ideology won't allow them to do!

It's the ultimate Catch-22... and it illuminates the central conundrum:

  1. Only those nations with vibrant economies can afford to both develop new weapons technology and also to project force around the world.
  2. Only those nations with capitalist financial systems will have a vibrant economy.
  3. But nations with capitalist financial systems must, of necessity, be free and open, connected with the rest of the world, democratic, and operate under a transparent rule of law: in other words, members of what Thomas P.M. Barnett calls the Functioning Core.
  4. But if a nation is in the Functioning Core, it is not a national security concern if they develop nuclear weapons; attacking the West is the farthest thing from their minds. Aside from the United States, Core countries spend much less money either developing new weapons technology or projecting their force (yet another instance of American exceptionalism). When we try to get them to do so -- for example, in Afghanistan or Iraq -- it's like pulling fingernails.

Thus, Iran appears to be imploding due to the built-in contradiction of wanting to be a super-power -- and simultaneously wanting to be a closed society run by fanatical religious totalitarians. They will only be able to afford military technological development and serious force projection when they transform themselves into a society that has no interest in military technological development and serious force projection.

It looks more and more like Iran will be defeated, not by military invasion, not even by missile attack, but by the economic realities of Western style capitalism. (The irony is so thick, you could cut it with a sword.)

Econ. 101: It's not just a good idea; it's the natural law of the universe.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 20, 2007, at the time of 6:54 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1916

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Contranomics of Global Jihad:

» Submitted for Your Approval from Watcher of Weasels
First off...  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now...  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council link... [Read More]

Tracked on March 20, 2007 10:52 PM

» Big Lizards Wins Watcher's Council Award! from Big Lizards
So you see? Our plan worked! (Which plan was that, Dafydd you conniving reptile? Shh... it's detailed here.) Anyway, the winners of the Watcher's Council award for best blogposts of the week are... Among Watcher's Council members: The Contranomics of... [Read More]

Tracked on March 23, 2007 12:28 AM

» If ... you must 03/23/2007 from Soccer Dad
If you haven't read Dear Abby at SerAndEz; you must. Heh. If you haven't read The Ignoble Experiment's Shoo away the Paranoia; you must. In which she enjoys 300 as a movie. With no sub-context. If you haven't read PsychoToddler's Hail to the King Baby;... [Read More]

Tracked on March 23, 2007 2:03 AM

» Council speak 03/23/2007 from Soccer Dad
The council has voted and the results are in. The winning Council entry was Big Lizards' The Contranomics of Global Jihad pointing out that it wouldn't be cheap for Iran to continue exporting its Jihad. The winning non-council post was American Digest'... [Read More]

Tracked on March 23, 2007 2:31 AM

» Tom around the web from Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog
Pride of place this week definitely goes to Tom's short post on Chinese peacekeeping with the Stratfor graphic, Chinese contribution to UN Peacekeeping Operations. It got picked up by MountainRunner, Danger Room, Pacific Empire, and Robot Economist (wh... [Read More]

Tracked on March 23, 2007 5:59 AM

» The Council Has Spoken! from Dean's World

The Watcher's Council has announced its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week....

[Read More]

Tracked on March 23, 2007 7:30 AM

» Watcher's Council Results from Rhymes With Right
The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The Contranomics of Global Jihad by Big Lizards, and Four Years In by American Digest.  Here is a link to the full results of the vote. Here are... [Read More]

Tracked on March 24, 2007 7:31 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Tomy

Dafydd,

This is great news, however there is one more possible motive for Russia to move toward our side; take a look at the global poker game. As you have written, we have two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf. Adding the Stennis Group to the region was Bush's raise, and Russia has the following choices:

  1. Decide that Bush is bluffing and that an air attack against Iran is not likely. And call his raise.
  2. Decide that he is not bluffing and an air attack against Iran is likely, but would be better for Russia than a nuclear Iran. And call his raise
  3. Decide that a U.S. air attack is likely, and would be worse for Russia than a nuclear Iran. And fold

Given this scenario, it appears that Russia folded.

The cowboy cleaned the table.

Tomy

The above hissed in response by: Tomy [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 10:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

You forgot one salient point.

Since election Bush has gone after the much derided Axis of Evil hammer and tongs. In the case of Iraq it was by invasion. But we haven't been sitting on our hands regarding Iran or North Korea.

Iran has TRIED to invest in upgrading its oil infrastructure by buying or bribing companies and nations to do the work. The U.S. has been actively (and successfully) blocking these efforts. Iran has tried to get loans from various banks and international entities to fund development, again no dice mostly because of U.S. actions (and the Iranians own stupidity).

Right now Iranian oil production is declining 10% per year. In 10 to 15 years their oil production will be negligible.

Cut off the root, and the vine with wither.

The difference between and explosion and an implosion? Containment.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 10:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

1. Only those nations with vibrant economies can afford to both develop new weapons technology and also to project force around the world.
2. Only those nations with capitalist financial systems will have a vibrant economy.

Um … remember the Soviet Union?

I don’t think we would describe their economy as either vibrant or capitalist, but they seem to have been able to project force pretty well anyway.

Not that your conclusion about Iran’s ability to become a super-power is incorrect. But the fact that their economy isn’t capitalist may not be the overriding factor.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 9:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I posted the above before I had a chance to read your latest article, "Imperial Congress Summons Its Subjects", in which you address the issue I raised.

Actually I composed the above several hours ago. I tried to post it several times, but I couldn't. Every time I tried, I could preview, but when I clicked on "post", I got an error message saying I hadn't logged in -- which, of course, was not true.

It looks like there was a considerable period of time when no one posted any comments. Maybe you had a temporary malfunction.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 10:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

(Sorry, I meant to post the latest item above in your previous article on Alberto Gonzales.)

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 10:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

Um -- remember the Soviet Union?

They didn't develop new weapons technologies; virtually everything they had was a knockoff of ours. Name a single weapon system that came from the Soviets first.

Remember the Strategic Defense Initiative? That pushed the limits of technology so much, the Soviets knew they could never compete. That's why they tried so hard at Reykjavik to get Reagan to trade it away for something -- anything!

And the world has changed drastically since 1986, even more so since the Soviet Union's heyday in the 1960s and 1970s: Developing new weapon systems today is not only much more expensive than it used to be (we distinguish between developing and deploying, which is just a matter of industrial output), it also requires vastly more creative science and engineering... which is also in short supply anywhere except in a capitalist democracy.

The Soviets (and the Chinese, until recently, when they started to get distinctly more capitalist) were only able to ape our own systems... but bigger and klunkier.

I stand by my statement: "State of the art" means a heck of a lot more in 2007 than it did in 1986; and the Soviets couldn't even keep up then. They -- the entire non-Western world -- is so far behind now, they might as well be using spears.

Even Iran's EFPs look suspiciously like our own, ca. 2000; I'll bet they stole some and just copied the design.

Israel has some beautiful fighter-jet designs. Great Britain has an incredible self-loading mobile artillery piece. I'll bet France, Germany, and Italy have some great weapons systems that we'd love to buy.

Britain is also top of the totem pole when it comes to minesweepers... but our new Zumwalt class destroyers are so cool, they could be Japanese anime.

We have bullets that can shoot around corners, fully intranetted combat control systems worn by all our soldiers, and smart bombs that can fly horizontally, then turn nose down to take out a townhouse without destroying the buildings on either side.

Who invented heads-up displays, laser-guided missiles, the Harrier jump-jet, and nuclear submarines? Capitalist countries (mostly us, but the Harrier is British).

Show me the Russian, North Korean, Iranian, or other non-capitalist country's amazing new weapon system, and then we can talk.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 3:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

It looks like there was a considerable period of time when no one posted any comments. Maybe you had a temporary malfunction.

Not I; that would be TypeKey, over which I have no control whatsoever.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 3:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Read again what you wrote:

1. Only those nations with vibrant economies can afford to both develop new weapons technology and also to project force around the world.

You link both developing new weapons technology and projecting force around the world to having a vibrant economy. You do not, however, link new weapons technology to force projection (although that seems to be the thrust of your response to my post).

My post took exception to whether a vibrant economy is a necessary precondition for a power like the Soviet Union to project force around the world. I still don’t think so.

Sure, we outclassed the Soviets technologically. They nonetheless managed to have the whole world paying very close attention to what they might be able to do with all their copycat weaponry. Who cares whether they designed their own nukes or not? We still were living with the reality (or was that surreality?) of MAD right up until the USSR imploded.

By the way, I don’t think weapons technology was that big a factor in the Evil Empire’s disintegration (if that is in fact what you were trying to say). And if political and economic factors hadn’t caused the Soviet Union’s collapse, would they still be a superpower today or would our technological advantage reduce them to also-ran status? We can’t say for sure, but with that many nukes …

You can project power as we do with superior technology. Or with sheer numbers as did the USSR. Another way is to have leadership that your adversaries think might just be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack. That’s what North Korea is trying to do and what Iran wants to be in a position to do -- although their battle plans probably don’t actually mention the head of state’s irrationality.

For the foreseeable future, I don’t see Iran being able to project force “around the world.” But with nukes they very definitely could dominate their corner of the world. And if they grow their sphere of influence to the point where they form the UWIR (Union of Wacko Islamist Republics) they might just be able to project force over a much larger area than just the Middle East.

Nearly all the weaponry you mention is for use by soldiers/sailors/airmen in combat. Iran won’t be deterred by this -- or, for that matter, by nukes aimed at them. If they build (or buy?) reliable nuclear warheads and delivery systems, they will have all they need to bring back the good old days of MAD -- first with Israel, then India, Europe, and.… True, we could bomb them back to the stone age, but we will never strike first with nuclear weapons. They will have attained their objective by becoming a major player on the world stage, with the ultimate bargaining chip in hand to blackmail the rest of the world. (“Convert or die, infidels!”)

Can our superior technology prevent this from happening? Maybe. But it will take more than saber rattling to dissuade the mad mullahs. We may have to actually use some of those weapons and cause (gasp!) bloodshed. And it could even cost the lives of a few of our brave troops in uniform. Sad, but it might very well be necessary.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 1:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

For future reference, if I encounter a problem accessing or posting on your site, do you want to be informed? Or does it just not matter to you?

(I understand that you have no control over TypeKey, but maybe you might want to rattle their cage if problems persist.)

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 1:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

You're making a classic mistake: I wrote a statement, which you interpreted a peculiar way. I told you that wasn't what I meant when I wrote it... and now you're arguing with me that it cannot possibly be interpreted any way except the way you did.

Please read my statement again:

1. Only those nations with vibrant economies can afford to both develop new weapons technology and also to project force around the world.

What I meant when I wrote that -- and which is the most obvious meaning -- is that the demands of simultaneously developing new weapons technology and also projecting force (both at the same time) is beyond the capacity of non-capitalist countries.

I am not saying that only capitalist countries can project force. I am not even saying that only capitalist countries can develop new weapon systems, though that's more true because of the freedom of inquiry necessary: A.Q. Khan did not develop nukes; he adapted known technology to what Pakistan could actually manufacture.

But those are both so economy intensive that you definitely cannot do both simultaneously unless you have a huge, vibrant economy.

Sure, we outclassed the Soviets technologically. They nonetheless managed to have the whole world paying very close attention to what they might be able to do with all their copycat weaponry. Who cares whether they designed their own nukes or not? We still were living with the reality (or was that surreality?) of MAD right up until the USSR imploded.

The Soviets were imploding for a long time... and it was from the economic strain of trying both to keep up with Western military deployments around the world -- and simultaneously, with the the technological "gaps" between the rapidly evolving warfighting tech of the West and the klunky, laggy tech of the Soviet Bloc.

That is why their economy tanked when it did. That is precisely what destroyed them.

You also fail to note that I'm talking about today, when the pace of technological change is vastly greater than it was a scant few decades ago. It was possible for the Soviets to keep up with both weapons research and force projection during WWII and even as late as the early 70s.

But the explosion of technological innovation in the microcomputer age and beyond simply left them in the dust. They were spending so much of their GDP on force deployment -- far higher a percent than we were spending -- that they just couldn't afford to undertake a space race, missile race, and anti-missile race at the same time.

We stupidly gave them breathing room in the 70s by agreeing to treaties that restrained our own development, artificially forcing us to slow down to the Soviets' pace. But when Reagan threw those agreements out the window and began evolving our forces as rapidly as American ingenuity and a capitalist economy could do, the Soviet Union crumbled faster than anybody but Reagan himself could have imagined.

By the way, I don't think weapons technology was that big a factor in the Evil Empire's disintegration (if that is in fact what you were trying to say). And if political and economic factors hadn't caused the Soviet Union's collapse, would they still be a superpower today, or would our technological advantage reduce them to also-ran status? We can't say for sure, but with that many nukes?

"Trying" to say? Oh come on, everybody but you understood that's what I am saying. Don't you recall what finally precipitated the collapse? It was the SDI... which precisely attacked your last sentence.

"With that many nukes" assumes that a nuclear missile is unstoppable... which is true, given Soviet technology.

But not given American and other Western technology. That is the point you consistently ignore, and I'm not sure why.

(We never finished developing SDI because, under Bush-41, we once-again crippled our own abilities artificially; but under Bush-43, we have developed BMD to the point where we likely could put up exactly the shield that Reagan envisioned -- but there is no longer a plausible threat that demands it.)

Nearly all the weaponry you mention is for use by soldiers/sailors/airmen in combat.

Oh for heaven's sake, Dick E; that's because I was talking about earlier systems, when the big enemies were the Soviets and the Red Chinese. But the economy and freedom that can invent MIRVs and the SDI can also invent non-lethal area weapons, viral bank-account monitoring programs, better infiltration-detection systems, and theater BMD... each of which helps against Iran and other jihadist states.

You are engaging in what Ayn Rand called "concrete-bound reasoning," where you cannot seem to progress beyond the specific example cited to the larger, analogous underlying situation.

Finally, in your last paragraph, you imply that I'm opposed to the use of force against Iran... but as a long-time reader of Big Lizards, you should know that's not true.

However, I do not believe, in the end, that we will have to invade Iran the way we invaded Iraq; and we might not even have to attack the nuclear sites. It may not be necessary, because the mad mullahs seem determined to commit economic self-immolation.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 2:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

For future reference, if I encounter a problem accessing or posting on your site, do you want to be informed? Or does it just not matter to you?

Yes, of course I want you to tell me. But you must also accept the fact that we're all dependent upon other people's technologies; and often, those other people care very little about individual problems on individual blogs.

I think we've all had problems with TypeKey in the past; and we've all complained. But unless a problem persists and can be reproduced -- and unless TypeKey cares enough about the problem to fix it, given that TypeKey is both free and voluntary -- there is nothing I or any other individual blog can do about it.

It's simply a fact, not a chastisement.

Dafyd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 21, 2007 2:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

OK, I understand that your statement #1 (I don’t need to reproduce it again, do I?) means that a country can’t develop new weapons technology and simultaneously project force around the world unless it has a vibrant economy. Fine.

In my defense, go back and look again at your original post. The first time you mention new weapons technology is in your statement #1, and nowhere do you discuss why home-grown weapons technology is important for force projection or for any other reason. I can understand why a superpower today needs to be on the cutting edge of technology. But the topic of your article was force projection by Iran. I don’t think even the mad mullahs see themselves as a superpower -- or even projecting force world-wide (which, one can argue, is not necessarily the same thing) -- in the near future. It’s probably in their dreams, along with the return of the Caliphate, but I doubt they expect it to happen in the next few years. Heck, they still don’t even have their first working nuke.

So in reading your original article, the matter of developing new weapons technology looks like an interesting intellectual diversion, but really not relevant with respect to Iran. While Iran clearly is interested in projecting force beyond its borders, it’s not at all clear why they would need new technology, whether home-grown or not, to accomplish this. So when I wrote my first post about the Soviet Union, developing new weapons technology seemed hardly relevant, while force projection clearly was. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Imagine my surprise when your first response to me was essentially all about new technology. I honestly couldn’t understand why you were beating that drum, when, as far as I can see, Iran, the main topic of the moment, really doesn’t need to have cutting edge technology to take them where they want to go for the next several years.

(Aside: Before you again say something to the effect that everyone gets it but me, note that you had exactly two -- count ’em -- commenters other than myself on this article. If you think that means everyone else completely agrees with you. I suggest you think again.)

You're making a classic mistake: I wrote a statement, which you interpreted a peculiar way. I told you that wasn't what I meant when I wrote it... and now you're arguing with me that it cannot possibly be interpreted any way except the way you did.

Really? Please show me where you told me that wasn’t what you meant. And if it requires reading between the lines, at least point me to a paragraph, not an entire post. Thanks.

The Soviets were imploding for a long time... and it was from the economic strain of trying both to keep up with Western military deployments around the world -- and simultaneously, with the the technological "gaps" between the rapidly evolving warfighting tech of the West and the klunky, laggy tech of the Soviet Bloc.


That is why their economy tanked when it did. That is precisely what destroyed them.

OK, the Soviet Union’s economy tanked, causing their undoing, and military spending was a contributing factor.

You also fail to note that I'm talking about today, when the pace of technological change is vastly greater than it was a scant few decades ago. It was possible for the Soviets to keep up with both weapons research and force projection during WWII and even as late as the early 70s.

I didn’t fail to note it, but I did, intentionally, not mention it. What is the relevance of today’s technology vis a vis a nation that ceased to exist years ago? All that says is that if they were behind us then, they probably would be even further behind today. So what?

"Trying" to say? Oh come on, everybody but you understood that's what I am saying. Don't you recall what finally precipitated the collapse? It was the SDI... which precisely attacked your last sentence.

That’s what you are saying? Now, in your latest post, yes. If you think you said so before, please show me where.

"With that many nukes" assumes that a nuclear missile is unstoppable... which is true, given Soviet technology.


But not given American and other Western technology. That is the point you consistently ignore, and I'm not sure why.

You acknowledge, in the paragraph immediately following the above, that SDI technology has not actually been made fully operational, but that we could perfect it if we were so inclined. Fine. What I meant by “with that many nukes” was that even with a fully operational SDI, in an all-out nuclear confrontation with an adversary having as many missiles and warheads as did the USSR, we would still suffer significant casualties. No weapon system, including SDI, is perfect. You may think that SDI would stop every single missile launched at us. I don’t. In fact I think a lot of missiles would reach their targets. If someone sent 100 or so missiles in our direction simultaneously, would we be able to knock down 80% of them? 90%? 95%? I think that’s a stretch, and even then we would have lots of casualties. The SDI-less enemy would suffer more, but in the absence of a 100% effective (or nearly so) SDI, we’d still be living in a MAD world.

Finally, in your last paragraph, you imply that I'm opposed to the use of force against Iran... but as a long-time reader of Big Lizards, you should know that's not true.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you felt that way. The sentence about bloodshed was meant as a dig against those who oppose spilling blood for any reason -- they’re mostly on the left. And I do think it would be sad if we lost troops in such an effort -- it’s always sad when troops die, even in the noblest of causes.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 22, 2007 10:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Congratulations on the Watchers Council award!

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 23, 2007 9:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

Thanks... there, see? I told you I was right! (Just kidding.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 23, 2007 12:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Indubitably.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 23, 2007 4:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: exDemo

In all the comment something has been missed. Absolute size. As the communists used to say quantity (or the lack of it) has its own quality.

The East Bloc subsidized the Vietnamese at a rate of 15 to 25% of what the US spent on its Vietnamese but it cost heavily. The East bloc populations outnumbered the West even if most were Chinese subsistence peasants.

But they did have a corp of Scientists and Engineers. Iran has relatively none of either. What they had, bugged out after the fall of the Shah.

The population is only 60 million. She is an undeveloped economy with a patina of oil money that is dwindling for lack of investment. It won't be long for Chavez's Venezuela either.

Our Manhattan project cost a bundle even for us. Comparatively its more expensive for the mullahs. It costs us a lot to maintain a Hegemony. It costs the Mullahs a bundle to pay for the abject starveling of Hamas, Fatah, and Hezb'Allah. Even the Syrians cost a lot. They don't have a functioning economy and are a front line state with Israel so they have massive military costs for their peasant economy. And so does the mad Iraqi Mullah and his quixotic Mahdi
Army.

War is expensive and the Hezb'Allah has lost its infrastructure and demanding the equivalent of a Marshall Plan. So is Hamas. Both have been cutoff from western foreign aid; so Iran pays both ways. None of these sattelites can do much for themselves.

That's an awful lot to ask of a country of 60 million peasants to provide the surplus to supply.

The signs of the collapse are all around you. The Kim Jong Il crazies are ready to throw in the towel; the Iranians are tottering, The Al Quedsists were never a nation state and have been exhausted of both manpower and money. All three are ready to fall.

Hell it took all they had to sponsor the micro, micro TET, prior to the American election.

Believe it or not, George Bush might just pull it off. He still has two years to do so.

The above hissed in response by: exDemo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 25, 2007 7:23 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved