abitare (99.42)

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 24, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Imperial1964 (97.93) wrote:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the headlines were a little funny-sounding.

Dong stronger as government may support stocks
Vietnam to sell 300 bln dong bonds on June 27

Report this comment

#2) On June 25, 2008 at 12:26 AM, TheParadox (81.77) wrote:

Very insightful, Im not much of a currency trader, but i know the implications of government control and monetary policy fairly well.

I don't really know too much about vietnam; guess its one of those "out of sight out of mind" places of the economic play ground for me.  But I thought it was absolute nuts that a currency would not only trade on a "black market" but trade lower...  I've never heard of anything like that...

Talk about worthless currency... You really have to hate their government after something like that (buying dollars with dong, preventing a hedge against inflation with the gold suspention)

Report this comment

#3) On June 25, 2008 at 12:35 AM, jahbu (86.42) wrote:

Wait until the Supreme Court rules on guns. The main stream media will portray it as a pro gun victory but look deeper. 

Folks might fork over their gold, but what about their guns?

We are at the crossroads.  Good will prevail

Jahbu

 

Report this comment

#4) On June 25, 2008 at 12:51 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Aba, Hey. The time is not yet here. Give it about 2 or 3 more years. Why you ask. Just a feeling and a stupid reason. The last time the pope came to America was to visit Carter. He was the talker. Then came Reagen. Cold war stopped. This time the Pope came to visit Bush. Hence Obama ( the talker )  will win the election. Also like Carter he will be the way the country will finally go bankrupt. Remember that he is a Blood relative of Chaney. CFR member. The master plan from 1939  Also see Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Se....... I prefer the simple gold ring. You don't pay for fancy just plain. You can still sell jewelry.  As far as my other thoughts on everything else.... well that will have to be another time. 1776 

Report this comment

#5) On June 25, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Schmacko (92.75) wrote:

"The US is involved in a dangerous situation in Iraq. If Israel attacks Iran. Iran could eventually overwhelm the US forces in Iraq. Baghdad is only 70 miles away from Iran's border. Guess what happens to the dollar in this circumstance? "

Sigh.  This is doom and gloom nonsense.  Israel may or may not air strike Iran.  Iran will aboslutely not cross the border of Iraq with any conventional force and engage the US in open war.  They couldn't win.  Proxy wars through insurgents is cheaper and better for them in PR sense but again it won't be enough to "overwhelm" US forces.  Really the scariest thing Iran can to do is mine the Strait of Hormez and shut down the world's oil flow for a little while.  I don't think Bush has enough political capital to take direct military action against Iran and honestly our military forces are too strained to want to open up a third front.  From Iran's standpoint they're better off just waiting til after the election to do anything.  If Obama wins and starts drawing down troops it only benefits Iran.  If McCain wins and leaves troop levels the same Iran is no worse off than they are now.    

Report this comment

#6) On June 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, abitare (99.42) wrote:

Schmacko,

Thanks for the reply.

We are in agreement here:

"1. Proxy wars through insurgents is cheaper and better for them in PR sense...

2. Iran can mine the Strait of Hormez and shut down the world's oil flow

3.  I don't think Bush has enough political capital to take direct military action against Iran and honestly our military forces are too strained to want to open up a third front.

I think Iran likes the insurgency role the best. But if forced to act  they could send forces into Iraq. I am familiar with a little history. I know how stupid the reasons are for an expanding and prolonging wars. Wars can turn tragic very quickly, I am not willing to dismiss a greater tragedy as readly as you.

"Sigh.  This is doom and gloom nonsense" Lets us hope you are right.

I will defer to William Lind: Operation Cassandra

William Lind | March 25, 2008

"Here's roughly how it might play out. In response to American air and missile strikes on military targets inside Iran, Iran moves to cut the supply lines coming up from the south through the Persian Gulf (can anyone in the Pentagon guess why it's called that?) and Kuwait on which most U.s. Army units in Iraq depend (the Marines get most of their stuff through Jordan). It does so by hitting shipping in the Gulf, mining key choke points, and destroying the port facilities we depend on, mostly through sabotage. It also hits oil production and export facilities in the Gulf region, as a decoy: we focus most of our response on protecting the oil, not guarding our army’s supply lines.

Simultaneously, Iran activates the (Shiite militias to cut the roads that lead from Kuwait to Baghdad. Both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades -- the latter now supposedly our allies -- enter the war against us with their full strength. Ayatollah Sistani, an Iranian, calls on all Iraqi Shiites to fight the Americans wherever they find them. Instead of fighting the 20 percent of Iraqis population that is Sunni, we find ourselves battling the 60 percent that is Shiite. Worse, the Shiites logistics lie directly across those logistics lines coming up from Kuwait.

U.S. Army forces in Iraq begin to run out of supplies, especially POL, of which they consume a vast amount. Once they are largely immobilized by lack of fuel, and the region gets some bad weather that keeps our aircraft grounded or at least blind, Iran sends two to four regular army armor and mech divisions across the border. Their objective is to pocket American forces in and around Baghdad.

The U.S. military in Iraq is all spread out in penny packets fighting insurgents. We have no field army there anymore. We cannot reconcentrate because we're out of gas and Shiite guerrillas control the roads. What units don't get overrun by Iranian armor or Shiite militia end up in the Baghdad Kessel. General Petraeus calls President Bush and repeals the famous words of Marshal I MacMahon at Sedan: "Nous sorrune dans une pot de chambre, and nous y serron emerdee." Bush thinks he's overheard Petraeus ordering dinner -- as, for Bush, he has.

U.S. Marines in Iraq, who are mostly in Anbar province, are the only force we have left. Their lines of supply and retreat through Jordan are intact. The local Sunnis want to join them in fighting the hated Persians. What do they do at that point? Good question.

How probable is all this? I can't answer that. Unfortunately, the people in Washington who should be able to answer it are not asking it. They need to start doing so, now.

It is imperative that we have an up-to-date plan for dealing with this contingency. That plan must not depend on air power to rescue our army. Air power always promises more than it can deliver.

As I have warned before, every American ground unit in Iraq needs its own plan to get itself out of the country using only its own resources and whatever it can scrounge locally. Retreat to the north, through Kurdistan into Turkey, will be the only alternative open to most U.S. Army units, other than ending up in an Iranian POW camp.

Even if the probability of the above scenario is low, we still need to take it with the utmost seriousness because the consequences would be so vast. If the United States lost the army it has in Iraq, we would never recover from the defeat. It would be another Adrianople, another Manzikert, another Rocroi. Given the many other ways we now resemble Imperial Spain, the last analogy may be the most telling.

I have said all this before, in previous columns and elsewhere. If I sound like Cassandra on this point, remember that events ended up proving her right."

Here is a summary from Scott Ritter on CSPAN:

 

 

Report this comment

#7) On June 25, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Schmacko (92.75) wrote:

Went and read the full article.  I think it's also pretty doom and gloom.  I was an analyst in the military, I've been to Iraq, I still work in the defense industry complex.  Iran, obviously, is still a pretty serious issue in the beltway so I still try and keep up on it even though it's not my main focus.  I think the article neglects a few things. 

A) Yes our main supply lines run up through Kuwait.  But if Iran did really invade and we needed too I think we could pull supplies through Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  Both might be hesitant but with Turkey I think you could pull some NATO strings and Saudi doesn't want Iran on it's northern border.  Also in a severe emergency I think the US military could get enough diesel to keep our mil moving directly from Iraqi refiners. 

B) The US military is very good at destroying conventional armies.  Very good.  It's what they train to do.  Armor columns can be chewed up by Air Power pretty quick.  The article mentions "and the region gets some bad weather that keeps our aircraft grounded or at least blind".  But our strike aircraft can fly off carriers and out of other countries.  Sadam tried to move units through cover of sandstorms and it didn't stop us from chewing his stuff up.  I think weather's role on keeping our aircraft grounded will be pretty negligible.  Also if Iran crosses the border I don't see any issue with US consolidating forces already on the ground to counterpunch.

C) I think the article overestimates Iran's pull on Sistani.  Sadr is more of a hot head and I could see him ordering the Mahdi army to attack US forces.  Sistani seems more patient, has more influence over the Shia population and he knows in a democratic Iraq the Shia win.  Giving up power in an iffy fight against the US doesn't seem his style.  Also insurgents tend to use IEDs and bombing tactics for a reason.  Whenever they directly engage US military forces they tend to die.  Meaning they can harrass and slow down military movement but that is all.  Also I don't think the average Iraqi wants to trade one occupying army for another.  Iraqis are pretty quick to take persian money and weapons for their own purposes but I don't see them wanting a persian army crossing their borders.

D) This whole article hinges on the US stiking Iran first.  George Bush is dumb.  He might even be dumb enough to think this is a good idea, but I still don't see him getting away with actual strikes on Iran.  Using Israel as a proxy (probably with US refueling support) is much more likely.  But I still believe (maybe I'm misguided) that "tough talk" against Iran is more a really poor attempt at a carrot and stick ploy to get Iran to cave on nuke research... which Iran won't do, because they have no reason to.  And if Iran isn't attacked first they have no reason to engage US military forces in open combat.  There's not much to gain and a lot to lose going that route.

I also don't have very high opionions of Iran's military's combat capabilities.  They were not overly effective against Iraq's military and that was the last time they were actually tested.  Assymetric warfare is the name of the game for most countries actively planning on the possibility of engaging US forces and that's primarily a defensive doctrine. 

For the record: I will cry if the Bush administration starts a war with Iran before leaving office. It really would be that dumb. It's lose, lose for everyone involved. Report this comment

#8) On June 25, 2008 at 4:25 PM, abitare (99.42) wrote:

Good reply.

“I think it's also pretty doom and gloom.”

Well, I don’t care as much about that. The US track record for War has been pretty dismal since WW2. Right? The War in Iraq is far from over. The dollar is in free fall for a reason.

I care about accurate assessments. I have called for a 40% drop in Chinese stock market, 40% drop in home prices, 25% drop in S&P 500, $175 oil, and a severe recession. I was called “doom and gloom” the entire time. (Ref 30 Dec 07 and Being a Bearish, Does not Mean I am Depressed or that I will Eat Bugs…(unless I have to) April 21, 2008 Posts)

But I am a realist.

“I was an analyst in the military, I've been to Iraq,”

Thank you for your service. You might know some history? Did you see any British tombstones in Iraq? This country has been occupied before.

Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which is now Turkey. The British took it away from Turkey. Right? Do you think Turkey wants it back or wants the US to have it?

“Saudi doesn't want Iran on it's northern border.”

Saudi’s army is the US. Does not matter what they want. Americans want housing appreciation, and full employment, but life does not grant you what you want.

“Also in a severe emergency I think the US military could get enough diesel to keep our mil moving directly from Iraqi refiners.”

Baghdad is 70 miles from Iran. How long do you think before Iran can get there?

“The US military is very good at destroying conventional armies.  Very good.”

No doubt, that is why everyone uses insurgency. No one is dumb enough to play to our strengths. They will try and bankrupt the US the same way the Soviets were bankrupted.

“I think weather's role on keeping our aircraft grounded will be pretty negligible. “

Not sure here. Hitler invaded Russia in June. But weather was a factor EVENTUALLY. Right?

 “Also if Iran crosses the border I don't see any issue with US consolidating forces already on the ground to counterpunch.”

With a 140k US vs? several million Iranian in a mountainous region? I think you might be confusing Iran with Iraq, they are very, very different.

“Sadr is more of a hot head and I could see him ordering the Mahdi army to attack US forces.”

Sadr has 2 million followers that is why we pay him to not kill us. How will work out in the long term? How will he use the money the US gives him?

“Whenever they directly engage US military forces they tend to die.  Meaning they can harrass and slow down military movement but that is all.”

That adds up. Bankruptcy is the goal. So far it seems to be working. Look at the dollar.

“Also I don't think the average Iraqi wants to trade one occupying army for another. “

Doesn’t matter, neither did Poland or Vietnam or Tibet etc….

“There's not much to gain and a lot to lose going that route.”

Iran’s powerful fear the young and unemployed. War is the answer for them. The same way Mao killed off the former Nationalist soldiers when Americans were DUMB enough to occupy Korea.

“I also don't have very high opinions of Iran's military's combat capabilities.” 

What about the Viet Congs? But they had Russian and Chinese support, do you think RC will not supply Iran?

 “I will cry if the Bush administration starts a war with Iran before leaving office. It really would be that dumb. It's lose, lose for everyone involved.”

Don’t cry buy gold, a weapon, save assets and buy a freezer stock your pantry. That is the point of the post. Be prepared.

Report this comment

#9) On June 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank you all for your service.

Report this comment

#10) On June 27, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Schmacko (92.75) wrote:

"Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire, which is now Turkey. The British took it away from Turkey. Right? Do you think Turkey wants it back or wants the US to have it?"

Turkey's main concern with Iraq is not letting the Kurds proclaim an independent state in the north which might ignite more seccessionist tendencies in Kurds in Turkey.  They also want to be seen as a defender of Turks throughout the region and so will act to protect the Turkoman minority in Iraq.  I doubt Trukey wants Iraq, or the balkans, or the levant, or egypt back.... although Turkey, being a successor state, never really had Iraq, that was the ottomans.  Turkey is also the heaviest foreign investor in northern Iraq and they tend to make a lot of money if the region stabilizes since oil from northern Iraq will most likely flow through Turkey to the Black Sea. 

"Saudi’s army is the US. Does not matter what they want. Americans want housing appreciation, and full employment, but life does not grant you what you want."

Unrelated points.  Saudi doesn't want Iran on it's northern border and so will most likely allow supplies to flow through it's country in the even of the Straits of Hormez being closed.

"Baghdad is 70 miles from Iran. How long do you think before Iran can get there?"

I don't think they can.  Not in any combat effective formation of troops.  As soon as they cross the border they lose the benefit of their planted Air defense network.  The attrition on their troops due to air strikes and artillery alone would be pretty horrendous. 

"No doubt, that is why everyone uses insurgency. No one is dumb enough to play to our strengths. They will try and bankrupt the US the same way the Soviets were bankrupted." 

Playing to our strengths would be crossing the border and engaging in conventional war.  Another reason I don't think they'd do it.  Waiting for us to be bankrupt... it's more likely they'd wait for the american people to get tired of us being over there and vote in someone to pull us out.  Again this would be a non war thing like I said before.

"Not sure here. Hitler invaded Russia in June. But weather was a factor EVENTUALLY. Right?"

Different country, different weather.  Dosen't apply.  Iraq's "rainy season" is December-January and it still doesn't rain very much.  The only other weather patterns they have that have military implications are sandstorms.  Like I said before they were negligible for Saddam so I don't think they'd help Iran much either. 

"With a 140k US vs? several million Iranian in a mountainous region? I think you might be confusing Iran with Iraq, they are very, very different."

The Iranian army isn't several million people strong.  Their total land forces including the Revolutionary Guard are less than 500,000.  If you count the paramilitary land forces they can bump it up to a couple million but they don't have the vehicles, command and control, or training really to use those forces in offensive operations.  You also have to consider they won't send everything they have over the border. The article you cited mentioned 2-4 mech and armor divisions.  If they send 4 that's less than 80,000 troops.  So you have 80,000 Iranians vs. 140,000 Americans.  Suppose "activated insurgents" nullify half our forces by restricting their movement or whatever (this is giving a lot of credit to insurgents) you then have 80k vs. 70k.  The US has a lot more force multipliers than the Iranians.  I'll take those odds.  

Also the mountainous parts of Iraq are mostly in Kurdistan.  The Kurds would fight the Iranians, and mountain border crossings are difficult.  Iran would have an easier time coming in through the south.  The rest of Iraq, where the fighting would take place, is pretty flat. 

"Sadr has 2 million followers that is why we pay him to not kill us. How will work out in the long term? How will he use the money the US gives him?"

The mahdi milita is estimated to be closer to 60,000.  It's defnitely not 2million.  He also has very little control over most of them.  Just kinda of issues out statements and if the militia likes what he says they follow it.

"Iran’s powerful fear the young and unemployed. War is the answer for them. The same way Mao killed off the former Nationalist soldiers when Americans were DUMB enough to occupy Korea."

Well... CIA world factbook numbers put Iran's 2007 unemployment at 12% and people living below the poverty line at 18%.  Which is high and possibly understated, but not time for revolution out of control.  Even if it was one of the IIRGC's main jobs is internal security and making sure young disenfranchised hot heads don't get out of line.  War is not the answer for them. 

"What about the Viet Congs? But they had Russian and Chinese support, do you think RC will not supply Iran?"

VC were insurgents fighting assymetrically.  They don't fit into discussions about Iran's conventional military capability which is what would factor into an invasion of Iraq.  A better comparison would be the NVA, which faired very poorly against the US military.   

I don't think our military exenditures in Iraq and the middle east will bankrupt the US, but it certainly isn't helping.  I don't have problems with bears.  It's a bear market, go make money.  I think will see one of those wacky W shaped recessions with short term rallies (where I'll try and make money)  followed by new lows.  Seems to be a 3 month cyclical thing at the moment.  I still view war with Iran in the near term as highly unlikely.  And I don't forsee complete economic collapse... though I'd be a happy camper if the government cut it's spending.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2012

July (1) January (1)

2011

December (2) November (6) October (6) September (7) August (8) July (3) June (6) May (5) April (1) March (3) January (5)

2010

December (13) November (22) October (20) September (15) August (13) July (15) June (9) May (7) April (4) March (9) February (19) January (14)

2009

December (19) November (19) October (19) September (21) August (24) July (31) June (28) May (33) April (24) March (20) February (24) January (33)

2008

December (28) November (24) October (31) September (32) August (20) July (24) June (32) May (28) April (22) March (27) February (20) January (21)

2007

December (9) November (5) October (1) September (4) August (3) July (1)