Your reasoning is sound, and Mahan might argue you are exactly on topic.
Strategy.

The current strategy in Iraq will fail to either destroy his weapons of
mass destruction or remove him from office. We cannot put enough pressure
on him to accomplish these ends. He is not afraid of us.

Following one of the most successful military campaigns in history, we are
left with him – by choice. Now we must learn to deal with it.

This is further proof that our military is second to none and our
diplomats are second to everyone.

* * * * J B K * * * *

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Eric Bergerud wrote:

>> Which is gonna hit home to the world wide viewing public?
>
>This caused me to put my wierd thinking cap on. I’m gonna place my bet on
>a disaster. Yes friends, you heard it here first.
>
What do the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WWI and Vietnam all have
in common? They were all preciptated in part by a naval incident. Personally
I start to fret when I hear about naval build-ups. Everyone is talking about
antrax or nerve gas. If the Iraqis used weapons like that (and they worked)
they would get nuked by Israel, the US or both – depending upon who suffered
the attack. But what if that loonie in Baghdad sent his whole damn AF with
every cruise missile he can get his mits on against a US task force. The
Stark has always bothered me. If the US was acting in a “provocative” manner
and Iraq struck with conventional weapons at our Navy, would any of our
allies support a land attack?

Personally I do not think the history of events that led to the end of
Desert Storm has been written yet. In retrospect, we either suffered a
massive failure of leadership at the top or we got taken to the cleaners by
some of our Allies. (Can’t you just see it? The French, Egyptians and Saudis
assuring the US that the Iraqi Army had pledged to overthrow Sadam and
arguing that a US drive to Baghdad could only humiliate the Arab world and
strengthen the Iranian demons. So, just one little cease fire and everything
will be fine. Big military victory, no losses to speak of, and Sadam taken
care of by the local inhabitants. And we fall for it.) There may be hell to
pay for that blunder, particularly in an area of the world where losing wars
seems to increase the strength of sadistic dictators.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Whoops, “RED Badge of Courage”

James

I think we’re still looking for that great WWII novel/memoir. Sledge’s _With
the Old Breed_ is one of a number of very fine books, but great literature
didn’t seem to come out of that war. The Great War generated three that hit
me like a brick: Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger, Goodbye to All That by
Robert Graves and Sagittarius Rising by Cecil Lewis (the last is argubly the
greatest book written about aviation). The Vietnam authors have scored a
couple of good ones. My favorite is Larry Heinemann’s Close Quarters.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

>> Which is gonna hit home to the world wide viewing public?
>
>This caused me to put my wierd thinking cap on. I’m gonna place my bet on
>a disaster. Yes friends, you heard it here first.
>
What do the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WWI and Vietnam all have
in common? They were all preciptated in part by a naval incident. Personally
I start to fret when I hear about naval build-ups. Everyone is talking about
antrax or nerve gas. If the Iraqis used weapons like that (and they worked)
they would get nuked by Israel, the US or both – depending upon who suffered
the attack. But what if that loonie in Baghdad sent his whole damn AF with
every cruise missile he can get his mits on against a US task force. The
Stark has always bothered me. If the US was acting in a “provocative” manner
and Iraq struck with conventional weapons at our Navy, would any of our
allies support a land attack?

Personally I do not think the history of events that led to the end of
Desert Storm has been written yet. In retrospect, we either suffered a
massive failure of leadership at the top or we got taken to the cleaners by
some of our Allies. (Can’t you just see it? The French, Egyptians and Saudis
assuring the US that the Iraqi Army had pledged to overthrow Sadam and
arguing that a US drive to Baghdad could only humiliate the Arab world and
strengthen the Iranian demons. So, just one little cease fire and everything
will be fine. Big military victory, no losses to speak of, and Sadam taken
care of by the local inhabitants. And we fall for it.) There may be hell to
pay for that blunder, particularly in an area of the world where losing wars
seems to increase the strength of sadistic dictators.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Andrew Fairnie wrote, conjecturing public reaction
to possible military action in Iraq:

> Which is gonna hit home to the world wide viewing public?

This caused me to put my wierd thinking cap on. I’m gonna place my bet on
a disaster. Yes friends, you heard it here first.

If a second Desert Storm is going to work, there has to be a disaster or
some sort of rallying call to the body politic. It will be another brush
off by the Hussein regime, because otherwise we won’t have the political
will to place ground troops in harm’s way. (Bear in mind this is only
conjecture on my part. As a wargamer, sometimes these thoughts come to
mind as possible causes for scenario creation.)

Examples used in the past 100 years:

Remember the Maine! (Barely within the 100 year mark.)

The Zimmerman Telegram.

Remember Pearl Harbor!

The so-called Tonkin Gulf Incident

“Courage Mom” (from Wag the Dog)

—-

Trivia question for any oceanographers out there. Most of the Persian
Gulf is shallow. If a US Carrier sinks there, how much of the
superstructure will remain above water, if any?

Tracy Johnson
Minister of Propaganda, Justin Thyme Productions
tjohnson@adnetsol.com
Last Two Wargames Played:
Axis & Allies
Gettysburg (Command #17 version)
Paint Ball
“Trust No One”
“Semper Pollus”
ADC-2239-5531
Vietnam: “Missed it by *that* much!”

I must agree with Das Boot: details seemed very accurate; the acting
portrayed the stresses on the crew so well; magnificent sea scenes – but
perhaps most of all, even though a movie, I thought it protrayed the
boredom alternated with terror of what WWII submarining must have been
like….

Tom, Darwin, Oz

Bill,

I would be a bit more charitable to Full Metal Jacket. I think Kubrick
missed, but not by a large margin. The business of the woman sniper was
stupid. Yet the ending is very ambiguous. I knew anti-war types that
considered it a pro-war movie. My biggest criticism is that it was very
predictable. (Kubrick is an odd duck: the guy made both Dr. Strangelove and
Barry Lyndon: one of the greatest and one of the worst films in the history
of cinema.)

Among Vietnam movies I like 84 Charlie Mopic (A Sundance Festival winner
before Sundance became famous); and Go Tell the Spartans – it had some
clunky scenes but Burt Lancaster was in fine form and the period it dealt
with (1963-64 somewhere out in the Delta) made the tone of the movie work.
No jets, choppers or firepower: just a couple of US advisors out at some
broken down outpost with some terrified Vietnamese militia. Then of course
there is Dear America: Letters from Vietnam, one of the great military
documentaries and a perfect vehicle for introducing the war to a generation
who considers it history.
>
>As to Full Metal Jacket … I lump it in the same category with Apocalypse
Now.

Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Finnish title is “Talvisota,” you can get it at Critics Choice Video at
www.ccvideo.com.

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

Dane wrote

>IIRC, the Turner Broadcasting people made the movie _Gettysburg_ on a
>shoestring budget. The reenacters were basically volunteers who
>received a few freebies as token recognition of their efforts. From what
>I’ve heard, a lot of those guys spent two or three weeks of their vacation
>time hanging around the location, waiting for the movie people to set up
>or run several takes.

A subscriber to this mailing list was one of those reenactors… What say
ye Patrick? Have you yet spent all the money you made on *Gettysburg*? 😉

Tom

Tom Robison
Ossian, Indiana
tcrobi@adamswells.com
_|_
–X-X-(ô)-X-X–

>> I know there were some political buttons pushed, but I do think that
>> Bavarian television’s production of Stalingrad was a damn good movie.
>> Violent, dismal, overall bummer. Sounds like the Eastern Front to me.
>
>Haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but I’ve heard it called the best
>movie on WWII land warfare, period.
>Steve Alvin

I think the 1989 Finnish “Winter War” beats “Stalingrad.” Mostly
because of the whole in-the-service-of-evil tragedy aspect of Germans in
Russia, which takes time away from combat scenes.

In the Finnish movie, while the tone of the movie is “brave,
family-oriented, god-fearing Lutheran christians defending their
homeland from the evil-commie-atheistic-hordes,” there is widespread use
of “artillery barrages,” either real or very good models of I-16s, a
dozen or so T-26, T-40, and BT-7 tanks–which they must have got out of
a museum, and lots of Russian human wave attacks (w/the conscripts in
those Civil War-era peaked cloth caps). Plus, you actually get to root
for the soldiers in the coal-scuttle helmets…

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Steve Alvin[SMTP:salvin@ocslink.com]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 3:50 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: Greatest War Movie of all Time
>