From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Stoopendous Strategies
Summary: followups to talk.politics.misc
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:29:18 GMT
 <1992Aug11.174559.3376@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug12.235129.15830@dscomsf.desy.de>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.235129.15830@dscomsf.desy.de>, poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser) writes:
> After three enjoyably restrained postings in a row, I'll claim the privilege
> to rant a wee bit, if the fit so takes me. I know that this isn't exactly
> a subject for s.c.usa, but then bear with me.
> 
> In article <1992Aug11.174559.3376@desire.wright.edu>, 
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> |>In article <1992Aug11.160435.2142@dscomsf.desy.de>, 
> |>poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser) writes:
> |>> Stupendous Man writes:
> 
> |>> |>	How about using force to stop Holocaust II?
> |>> 
> |>> I think I already remarked on my opinion of Your strategic capabilities
> |>> in not all that uncertain terms. Come back when You've managed to draft
> |>> up a proposal for a military intervention which contains a list of long
> |>> range goals and their attainability, time scales, manpower assessments, 
> |>> political implications and expected lossess in both local population and 
> |>> occupying force. Such as it is, the above statement is so much bridling
> |>> borborygmi.  
> |>
> |>	How about:
> |>
> |>	Securing internationally recognized borders.
> 
> Which are so much pish and tush. For instance, while only 16% (note: any
> number I'll give in this posting will haven an implicit error bar of 10%
> of the value quoted. Don't get on my case with nitty-gritties!) of the 
> total population in Croatia are Serbs, this number climbs to >60% in the 
> eastern parts of the Kraina.

	It was the same way in Africa, and I think the best solution in the
Balkans is the same: find old/colonial divisions and stick to them.  Sure
you'll have sizeable minorities in some states, but ethinic diversity should be
encouraged.  It's an asset.
	Preventing "unification" wars is also a good reason for sticking to
older borders.  Slovenia/Croatia/Bosnia/etc have a history of being divided
along their present (indpendence declared) borders.
	If it's that much of a problem, UN sponsered resettlement should be
done over gerrymandering of borders.

> The point I want to make is that ex-Yugoslavia is a ethnic patchwork-quilt.
> This is partially due to the Habsburg politics to establish villages of
> soldier-peasants along the Austrian-Ottoman lands of Military Croatia along 
> the Save into the Voivodina. There, in these areas, the Serbs are a flinking
> _majority_.
> 
> Once upon a time the boders of Yogoslavia were also internationally 
> recognised. Due to considerations such as "the right to selfdetermination 
> of a nation" these were sundered. Now Serb and Croatian warlords claim
> these selfsame rights to secede from political bodies like Bosnia or Croatia
> with about the same justification. Where do the rights to selfdetermination
> stop?

	As arbitrary as it may seem, where the international community stops
recognizing them.

> |>	Preventing neighboring states from aiding one side or the other in
> |>armed conflicts.
> 
> Which means that whoever does the enforcement will step _very_ hard on the 
> toes of our _dear_ Greek cousins. Word is out that >40% of the Serbian supply
> comes through Greece on the strength of their Macedonian preoccupation. 

	Well, sometimes your friends need to have their car keys taken away
:).
	Greece is supporting Serbia over Macedonia, but what happends ten years
from now when Greater Serbia threatens Greece?  All too often countries
supplying arms don't look past the immediate horizon.

> But I concur. This road promises the most reward.
> 
> |>	Dismantling the detention camps.
> 
> So? Commendable idea. How do You accomplish that? Military occupation? First
> You have to reach them and take them. This requires a military engagement.
> What do You suggest? A couple of divisions of airborne troops? To get them
> in should be a snap. To get them out is a damn sight more difficault, 

	I'd make it clear that it is in the best interest of Serbia that these
camps be closed, and the people handed over to UN agencies.  A reminder of
allied action against Germany, and that world opinion was quickly calling for a
repeat action against Serbia, backed up with some positive reinforcement:
support of Serbian minorities to political representation in new nations, or
help in resettlement for those who'd rather move to Serbia.

> |>	Helping the new states to set up their political/social institutions.
> 
> What are the states? It is becoming clearer and clearer that Croatia is
> still dreaming of the Great Croatia of '42, demanding territory within 
> Bosnia and Serbia itself? What are You going to do with the "independed 
> Serbian Republic of Craina"? You'll have to conquer it before You do 
> anything else.

	As above, stick to old A-H borders.
> 
> |>	Encouraging ethnic diversity within the new states.
> 
> How? After up to 18 months of mutual butchery, these ethnicities are at
> each other's throats. But again You're dividing the skin of the bear before
> You've bagged him. Before that, all of the above is so much starry-eyed
> nonsense!

	True.  But I'd make it a long term goal.

> |>	Stomping the hell out of aggressors.
> 
> Oh, q00l! So, who is the aggressor? How do You accomplish it? Just drop in
> Your neato-keeno laser-guided bombs on infantry mortars, or what? I've 
> asked You for a list of goals and their attainability, and You've answered
> with so much naive rodomontade.

	Move in, (yes with force if necessary) and establish lines along the
old borders.  Bosnia will welcome you.  The UN can make it clear to Croatia
that their help is requested, especially if they want help against Serbia. 
Serbia will not leave them alone if it conquers Bosnia.  An independent Croatia
in present ara is better than no Croatia.
	Then you bring together the factions (again, Bosnians of all flavors
except Serbian should be happy to see you) in a conference and let them know
that the current borders are IT.  You'll help rebuild areas, set up police and
security forces, resettle areas, etc.  But if one group starts shooting, you'll
move in and kick their butts, and the other groups that have been cooperating
will help you do it.

	Right now Serbia has nothing to lose.  Suggest to Serbia that if it
comes down to war, the neighboring states will want territory, and who are we
to deny them?  Again, emphasize that current borders and help rebuilding is far
better than defeat in a war and much smaller borders.

> For someone who has professed to have focussed on the '30s and '40s for
> his studies, historian, You show a remarkable lack of knowledge as to
> what makes this conflict tick, and, what is even worse, how other military
> undertakings of this sort fared in nearly the same circumstances and exactly
> the same localities.

	The Balkan wars of 1911-12 are a better example.

> It should be noted, that Yugoslavia served admirably to bind a whole German
> army group, a bit more than an Italian army and a couple of Romanian divisions
> between '41 and '44. That is >500.000 soldiers. And, as You hopefully know,
> they just about managed to hold the main population centers, and that only
> by imposing a horrendous terror regime. The Wehrmacht, just combatting the
> partisans, managed to kill ~1 M people all by itself. It was a horrible, a
> bloody, a no-quarters-given conflict on both sides. And the Germans didn't 
> manage to contain the partisan menace.

	No they didn't.  They would have done far better if they had chosend
the Serbs instead of the Croats as their puppets.  Or even better, not tried to
elminate whole populations, but used them as allies (as the Urkranians would
gladly have done).
	But then that's what made them the Nazis, they didn't want anyone else
but Germans left alive.
> 
> The words that comes to mind is Mujahiddin, Afghanistan. The situation of
> Sarajevo is Dien-Bien-Phu in spades.

	The French stupidly took the low ground and laughed at the "primitives"
who began encircling them.  France also abandoned them "officially".  When the
UN moves in, it will not be with 1 division, and it will not be a spot
entrenchment.
	It will not be the Serbs and Muslims and Croats against themselves and
the UN.  It will be the UN and Croats and Muslims against Serbia.--That is if
the UN does it right.

> You have to invest enormous manpower to secure Your lines of communications.
> You have to invest enormous manpower to attain any rational military goals.
> And You can never be sure who is going to shoot at You, since You are bound
> to step on the toes of the Bosnia and Croatian partisans, as well as on the
> Serbian's. Remember, You have to protect the Serbian population from the 
> wrath and retribution visited upon them by, understandably but intolerably,
> irate other ethnicities, as well as keep Croatian ambitions in check.

	If the UN approaches the situation from the right angle, the Croats and
Muslims will be on their side.  They'll have to convince the would-be reprisers
that starting the conflict again will only make things worse, and the UN will
be against them, too.

> How do You target Your neato-keano airborne weapons in highly mountainous
> territory without Forward Air Controllers? Are You going to send a mission
> for any piffling 81 mm infantry mortar that sets up business somewhere,
> lobs a few rounds onto a target, be it a population center or a military
> target, and vanishes into the blue? Or are You going to accept the losses 
> You incur by having them circle often enough to acquire a target, but 
> falling prey to the no doubt multitudinous SAM-7s that are in the Serbian
> arsenals?

	You send out recon teams whose job it is to find such roving mortar
squads and elminate them.  The US has counter-fire computers that can have
response rounds fired before the incoming shells land.
	Helicopter gunships would be more effective than planes.  You'll lose
some to SAMs, sure.
	But then there will be casualties of all sorts.  Is it worth it to
stop a repeat of the Holocaust?  Yes.

> What are the Dicks, Toms and Harrys You send in going to do when they find
> one of their brothers in arms bestially butchered by one side or the other?
> You are inviting that they are venting their wrath the same way, and, them
> being on the front lines, I could not really fault them for their anger.
> But _You_ are greasing their trigger fingers.

	You fight to win, you don't let Serbs hide in Serbia.  There will not
be a protracted guerilla war once the Serbian regime is conquered.

> What in the name of Satan have You been thinking when You typed these lines?

	Do it right, do it now.

> |>> As to Your choice of descriptives, let it suffice to say that You are 
> |>> adding monstrously bad taste to historical myopia. I surmise they go 
> |>> well together. But while we're at it, in Somalia there is a good chance
> |>> that they'll accrue more than 1 megadeaths in the coming 2 weeks. That
> |>> is a sight more gastly than this comparatively minor tribal warfare in
> |>> Europe. Any comments, Sooper-Dooper Humanitarian?
> |>
> |>	I see no reason to let the Serbs continue to genocide Muslims and
> |>Croats simply because it's not as bad as Germany circa 1942.  (Yet.)
> 
> Very well. But then You have to offer a viable strategy and a viable
> military perspective. If You go in now, You'll still be there in ten years.

	That's where we differ.  I don't think we will be there in ten years. 
Not even in ten months.

> You will invite a unification of the Serbian cause and the obliteration
> of the Serbian opposition, which still is Your best bet to check the
> supplies to the partisans and the army. You invite a totally hazy imbroglio.
> You invite getting into the crossfire of different groups loyal to different
> warlords.
> 

	The Serbs are not united in the war effort.  There have been large
anti-war demonstrations.  Units moving into Serbia are more likely to be met
with parades than snipers.

> This is _not_ Germany of '45. This is Afghanistan a l'Europeenne. Or Lebanon,
> if that is more of a reference to You. There are no clear borders. There are
> very few clearly defined military objectives. No side has very much of a
> morally defensible position, so Your focus on Serbia is highly erroneous.

	Without Serbia, the serb militias would soon disband or cease to be
effective fighting units.  Serbia is acting in the same role as China did in
1950's Indochina: safe haven and supplier.

> As to the choice of terms, You are belitteling and cheapening the fate of
> the people who died in the Holocaust by spending this coin so freely, just
> to wring emotional effect from the issue. And as to the number II, well, 
> the first time concentration camps were used in this century, historian, 
> was during the Boer war for exactly the same purposes as those now extant 
> in Yugoslavia. Since then, this device was used mutitudinously all through 
> this century. You are off by at least a factor of magnitude.

	It is a repeat of the Holocaust.  Don't just take my word for it. 
Jewish organizations everywhere are calling for intervention.

> Don't use the word Holocaust!
> 
> |>	Somalia?  Have they asked for our help yet?  Send them help, but 
> |>better to move them to where the food is.  Or help them grow their own.  
> 
> Oh, yes, indeed, they did. But You see, that conflict and that misery isn't
> as assidously televised as the Yugoslavian civil war. That aside, since when
> did a USAian humanitarian need any invitation to offer help, hmmm?

	(I'll pass on that one :)
> 
> And it would tax even the incredible USAian resourcefulness to grow food for 
> a couple of a million people in a span of two weeks. And moving them where
> there is food, what do You have in mind? Kansas? Whyoming?

	Sure, why not?  The industrial nations could absorb much of the
population.  Meanwhile, teach Somalians about birth control and get the
Israelis to teach them how to farm in the desert.

> |>I don't know enough about the military situation to comment on that.
> 
> It's a dirty little civil war nearly wihout any heavy equipment, which by now 
> is mainly fueled by the growing hunger. A regiment or two to guard the food 
> distribution lines would be entirely enough, if the food were distributed 
> equivocally and there was enough food.
> 
> There won't be.
> 
> As of now, the relief organisations have to hire their guards from local 
> warlords, paying them 10% of the food as tribute.
> 
	I see no reason why the UN (which is now involved) can't deal with the
problem in Somalia also.  It's about time we stated using the UN to it's full
capabilities.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.war