WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2002-11-09 Published on: ETHERZONE.COM  Posted By: Jan
SubTitle: How I would fight the USA
I don’t know what Saddam is planning, but I thought it might be an interesting exercise to
sit back and ponder, practically, what I would do if I were in his position. It should prove
to be an interesting theoretical exercise. Many people tend to think that if you are outnumbered
and outgunned that surrender must necessarily follow. Military history shows us that this is
not necessarily true. Even if you do lose, you can make your attacker pay dearly in blood.
I see, that for the moment, there is hope that the USA might not have to attack Iraq. Chances
are that Saddam is merely playing for time and that he is trying to strengthen his hand on all
fronts as much as he can. He could of course just give up altogether and toe the line, but no
doubt he is trying to make a stand against the USA. His best hopes are political of course. What
we do not know is what support and assistance he is getting from Russia, China and even Germany.
My guess is that Saddam is fronting for the Russians and Chinese who want him to stand against
the USA so that they can see if they can exploit the situation to the detriment of the USA.
There is a massive US Military buildup under way. This Gulf War may superficially resemble
the last one, but I think one should not imagine it will work out exactly the same way. Things
could change. The main area of difference is the political arena. That is where things could
be very different. I think it will be worth the effort of spending some time analyzing various
aspects of the upcoming war. I will therefore be devoting articles to Middle East issues from
time to time.
I am no military expert, but I have always had an inexplicable fascination for military things.
I should also state at the outset that the most important military facts affecting the upcoming
war will of course not be known to the public. All the players, including the USA, Saddam, Russia,
Israel and all the others will be keeping their aces hidden until they need to use them – if they
need to use them. So these military, political and espionage secrets will not be known to us until
the dust has settled. So this makes any prediction of where things will go, difficult. But, we
can examine and think about a great many issues with regard to war.
Military tactics have been the subject of interest for thousands of years as people try to wage
successful wars. In those days, armies lined up in front of each other and fought it out. It was
a pretty simple affair, and to many, the outcome seemed more dependant on luck than anything else.
But with time various principles arose. It was discovered that a great many things could be done
to increase the chances of victory.
The simplest and most important lesson has been the need for massive force. The logic behind it
goes like this. If you had 100 soldiers fighting another 100 soldiers and they were similarly
armed and trained, you would find that neither side would have a clear victory. More often than
not, they would fight it out with both suffering similar numbers of casualties. It was realised
that if you had 200 soldiers attacking 100 that you would not only get a clearer shot at victory,
but you would have a quicker battle and the attacker would actually suffer less casualties. This
eventually resulted in the 3 to 1 rule: That for an attacker to be almost assured of victory he
must have 3 times as many troops as the defender. Thus, the most important principle to remember
is that massive force is good – if you intend winning a decisive victory. Massive force of course
results in massive casualties on the enemy side, but in very few on your side. Massive force also
speeds up war, and that too is good. The faster things happen, the less casualties there will be
in total. One of Napoleon’s maxims was that you must wage war as energetically as possible because
that is the most humane way of doing it. Thus, Blitzkrieg type of warfare is the best way to fight
a conventional war. It should be noted, that in such war, hours or even days can make a big
difference. Speed and preparation is of the essence.
Another principle in conventional warfare is that of exploiting a victory and pursuing the
defeated enemy. If you have broken the enemy and they are on the run, it is imperative that
you pursue them relentlessly. This is to prevent them from regrouping, and setting up new
defensive positions which you would have to fight through again. Pursuit of a retreating
enemy enables your forces to advance great distances with very few casualties. Once an
enemy is on the run, the more you can keep him on the run the more likely that all resistance
will be broken.
Let me digress for a moment because there are two very valuable lessons which I want to pass on
to people. You will often hear the enemies of Israel crying about Israel’s “massive use of
force”. They will decry it and try to demonise Israel for it. Let me remind you, that it is
the massive use of force which is causing the casualties in that war to be so low. If the Israelis
were bogged down on a one-for-one fight where they could not defeat the terrorists, then you
would have had twenty times as many dead by now. World War I is a perfect example where one side
could not muster enough force to knock the other out quickly. The result was that millions
were slaughtered on battlefields for virtually no gain. If you analyse wars, you will see,
all conflicts where one side could not muster the force needed to knock the other out, resulted
in a never-ending slaughter. Africa, in particular, is a place where this pattern has predominated.
As recently as the war in the DRC [former Zaire], we see 2.5 million people dying in a war that
just dragged on and on over an area 1/4 the size of the USA. The point I wish to make is that
all the emotional cries for Israel to “stop using overwhelming force” are crazy. That sort of
talk will lead to more bloodshed. What is keeping casualties low is that Israel has an
iron grip on the PLO. If Israel were to release that grip, or if Israel refused to fight, then
the PLO and its other terrorist allies would merely fight harder and longer. Of course, the
right thing for Israel to do militarily, is to annihilate the PLO and other terrorists – just
wipe them off the face of the earth.
The next military rule which is violated endlessly by Western countries, and by Israel (because
they have no choice), is that of pursuit. So the terrorists get years in which to regroup,
learn from their failures and try again. This makes things very tough because it means that
fighting them becomes harder all the time as they get better. Militarily, this is madness.
Returning to the 3:1 superiority rule, I must say that this is only valid if you are dealing
with troops who are similarly armed, and similarly trained. If one side has better troops,
then that rule no longer applies. One could say it still applies, but not in terms of men, but
in terms of total fire power on the battle field. Another factor is technology. Better weapons,
and better integration of different types of combat units and weapons allows troops to be more
effective. The modern battlefield has lots of advanced weaponry on it – and this is true even
for Third World troops. The average soldier of today has tremendous firepower at his fingertips.
What has evolved over time is a series of specialised weapons which are designed to knock out
other weapons. When you have modern armies fighting together as a combined arms team, they are
extremely effective. But if, due to battle losses, certain weapons are knocked out, then that
whole combined arms system breaks down and then that army is no longer capable of effective
resistance. For example, the USA has a great love of air power, and the USA uses air power
to break down the combined arms structure of the Iraqis. This is one of the reasons why the
USA has been able to fight wars with virtually no casualties.
During any period of warfare in history, one finds armies performing pretty consistently. This is
because of their training, culture, technology, intelligence, etc. It should be noted that most
warfare, even in the earliest of times, was not as dependent upon physical characteristics as
you might think. When large numbers of troops are involved in operations, the mind tends to
dominate. The intelligent control of masses of troops makes a huge difference to the outcome.
War is of course a subject of heavy study, and it is worth comparing the troops in the
Middle East on a man-for-man basis. Back in the 1960’s a number of US Military experts,
headed by Colonel T. N. DuPuy came up with a method of analysis they called QJM. It was
based on the detailed historical analysis of battles. QJM eventually gave way to an even
more advanced computer-based model. These people did various analyses for the US Military.
There are various similar types of models which have been created over the years. What is
interesting however, is a comparison of the fighting capabilities of troops in the Middle
East based on past wars. Sadly, I do not have figures since the 1990’s, but nevertheless
I will give the reader some idea of ratios which resulted from a QJM analysis. If we use
the Palestinians as the base figure, of 1.00, then here are some comparisons: Syrians 1.33,
Egyptians 2.00, Jordanians 2.27 and the Israelis 3.50. What this means is that 100 Israeli
troops are as effective as 350 Palestinians. From what I have heard, the Egyptian army may
be even more effective than the number above shows. US Forces are probably on a par with,
or slightly lower in effectiveness than the Israeli ratio of 3.50.
These numbers are only valid in combat where soldiers are facing each other. Since the USA uses
a lot of missiles and aircraft to do the real fighting, there is not all that much ground combat
as in previous wars. This gives American wars in recent years a sort of unreal feel to them, and
people think that war can be fought without losses. One should never go to war expecting such
things because, things can go wrong – maybe not on the battlefield, but in other ways.
The Iraqi army is probably functioning at a fraction of its prior effectiveness, and it may
already be in a defeated state of mind. It remains to be seen if they will actually fight, and
how hard they will fight. A possible bottleneck where the enemy could inflict casualties on the
US forces is in the Iraqi cities. Street fighting is always a very dangerous and tricky thing to
engage in. Lots of bombing would of course cause civilian casualties, but that may be the best
way to go.
In military theory, there are of course discussions about the merits of air versus ground power.
The USA has long had an obsession with air power. The explanation I like the most about air power
is to liken it to long range artillery. Air alone cannot win a war and occupy a country.
This is contrary to the Military Theory of General Bill Clinton, who is otherwise known as the
USA’s Alexander the Great! But air power enables the destruction of certain key elements of
the enemy combined arms structures. Aircraft and missiles form the backbone of all US military
successes in recent years. It is an effective strategy, but it comes at a price. A military
aircraft costs approximately ten times what a tank does. It is a very expensive way of waging
war, but it does reduce casualties on one’s own side.
If I were Saddam and I wanted to try to put up the stiffest fight possible, my area of focus
would be dealing with US air power. I would do everything in my power to try to take care of
the planes which are doing the bombing. I would throw every conceivable dollar I could into
devising weapons to somehow take care of the USAF. I find it inconceivable that Saddam cannot
find a way of shooting down US aircraft which bomb his cities. If I were him, I would spend most
of my budget on finding a way of dealing with the USAF. Then I would prepare the army for
street fighting. Those would be the two things I would focus on (and of course have an escape
plan to get my ass out of there when everything falls apart!). I would do that in order to try
to slow down the US advance and make them pay for every inch that they advance. I would assume
at the outset that victory is impossible, but I would do my utmost to bog down the US advance
and try to get them into one of those wars where the casualties start mounting.
If I were Saddam, I would view the USA as squeamish. So I would do everything I could to
inflict casualties – any casualties – on US forces because I know that my allies in the Leftist
Mass Media in the USA would soon have women and wives crying for their husbands and soon
everyone would lose their appetite for war. Every plane shot out of the sky would be a huge
victory – especially if it were a Stealth aircraft (like the one those Yugoslavians shot
down).
If I had any missiles, I would use them to try to attack depots where the US Military is
massing equipment. But, since his missiles are not that effective, maybe it is best to use
them for terror effect. Since the Israelis have got an excellent new anti-missile system,
I think it would be TOTALLY POINTLESS firing any missiles at Israel. If I were Saddam, I
would NOT attack Israel because that would bring the IDF down on my head. Instead, I would
focus on the USA attacking my territory. So, if I can’t use my missiles against those massive
(and vulnerable) depots where the US Military is massing all their equipment, then maybe I
would consider using weapons of terror to try to bring Arab countries in on my side. Maybe
I could put pressure on Arab states to rebel against the USA using their bases? Most of the
Arab states this time, are on Saddam’s side, and maybe if Saddam threatened them it would
give them a reasonable excuse to turn against the USA? If I were Saddam, I would try to
do something constructive with what missiles I have rather than just go after the Israelis.
I would view the massive US need for logistics as one of its weak points. If you really want
to slow the US Army down, you should do something about its logistics. In fact, Napoleon’s
entire system of warfare was based on this very concept. Napoleon actually attacked his
enemy in the rear and cut off their supplies and forced them to fight at a disadvantage.
If I were Saddam, I would try to find a way of hurting US supply lines – if possible
through some types of special forces raids if that were possible.
I would also try to use every political trick in the book to deprive the USA of air bases
and countries from whence it would attack. Currently the USA has carte blanche. It can
fly from several different countries and attack on a wide front from many directions in
the West. I would try to deprive the USA of places from whence it can launch its attack –
especially with respect to air power. If the USA could be forced to operate along narrow
corridors it would make their life much more difficult.
There is talk of Saddam creating secret weapons, but all of those I read of are of little
military value. Do you remember Saddam’s “Super Gun?” That seemed to be an invention of
propaganda. It is not a bad idea, if it were workable. The Germans were masters at producing
long range cannons like Big Bertha. But there is a limit to the range of these things.
South Africa produced the G5 self-propelled artillery which could fire a shell 40 Km. But
these ranges are much too short for Saddam’s needs. Also, the “Super Gun” they spoke of
last time, even if it existed, would be highly vulnerable to a single air strike. It would
be very easy to determine the direction from which shells came and to then send in aircraft
to destroy it. The Super Gun idea has virtually no merits unless it is mobile.
The idea of drones is a much more realistic one. In this war we are definitely going to see
drones in action. In fact, the CIA has already used a high-flying drone to kill some Al Quaida
terrorists.
I have been telling people about drones for years. Back in 1992, I was working for a major
bank here in Johannesburg. One of the people I was developing a system for resigned one day.
He and I had spoken at great length about many things including life after death, and UFOs.
I was stunned by his sudden resignation. When I asked him where he was going he was very
vague, saying he had got a “consulting” job. He later called me into his office, opened
his briefcase and showed me his letter of appointment to National Intelligence in Pretoria!
He promised me that once he got there, he would find out what he could about UFOs and tell
me! He said that if there was anyone who knew about UFOs it must be them. I did not really
think he would since these things are governed by secrecy.
About a year after he left, I got a call one day from him! He told me it was going well and
he was loving his new job. Then he told me that he had some feedback regarding UFOs. He then
told me that he had discovered that at National Intelligence HQ in Pretoria, there was a small
office of about 5 people, who dealt with UFO sightings. He had engaged them in discussions.
They told him that most UFO sightings are misidentifications. But, that a small percentage
were real. They told him that there were a number of instances where military radar operators
noticed strange craft flying around, and when they checked with other countries and other
military which were in the region (e.g. the US Navy in the vicinity of South Africa), they
would find that these vehicles did not belong to any country in particular. In short, they
said there was evidence that we were being visited by unknown peoples, but they were friendly.
They told him that there was no evidence showing hostile intent (contrary to what a lot of
people in UFO circles believe – but that is another story).
Then he told me that there were also a certain class of air force aircraft which were so
secret that people did not know about them. He told me that these were drones. Drones, he
told me, in 1994, were the hot button of all the airforces of the world. They were being
developed to fight wars. He told me that South Africa in particular was using drones as
a cheap delivery vehicle – even for nuclear bombs. In particular, he once mentioned a
bomber drone, which he said could fly 3,000 Km and drop a nuclear bomb and return to base.
He said we had that type of weapon in South Africa already.
Then he said to me that at Area 51 in the USA, it was very possible that a weapon
was under development and that it was some type of super-advanced drone. I wrote an article
back in 1998, which seems to be a perenial favourite, and which is still out there to this
day. I entitled it “The Secret USAF Exploration of Space”. It was based on exactly what I
am telling you now, and much more. It is an article about the USAF having a space plane
which can take off and land, and can fly into space and you will never even know it is
happening. But that article also deals at length with the case which I have made time and
again, that the vehicle at Area 51 must be a computer controlled, pilotless plane – very
possibly a type of little pilotless Stealth fighter. It is also possible, and I am sure
I am the only one who has ever suggested this, that countries mount a type of light on
top of these drones – a type of light which appears circular and ball-like which is then
used to create the impression of a type of “alien vehicle” and that these drones are used
for spying on other countries.
A key element which my informant hinted at, and which he did not want to elaborate on was
that he kept speaking of “responsibility”. He kept hinting that there is a way of fooling
people. My impression was that if someone saw a strange “UFO” snooping around Russia, then
the Russians might think “These must be Martians” – meanwhile, it is really a USAF spyplane.
You will notice that a lot of UFOs also visit military bases and fly around them. It might
not be the Martians – it might be one country doing close-up spying on another.
The bottom line is that he told me of many things to do with drones and how they were
under TOP SECRET development everywhere. The original use for drones was in spying mostly.
But the new generation are pilotless computer controlled combat vehicles. There will even
be fighter versions. Some will be remotely controlled, but I have a suspicion that there
are SUPER SECRET vehicles which are under complete computer control. Area 51 may be a
fighter drone which is being put through its paces. A bomber drone would be easier to
produce than a fighter drone. The secret of a fighter drone would be writing the extremely
complex software to enable it to function intelligently in combat. But, such a plane might
be devastating. A handful of drones might operate at such speed with such split second
agility that they might shoot dozens of manned planes out of the sky in a very short space
of time.
Drones have been around for decades, and they have been TOP SECRET throughout their existence –
mostly because they were used for spying purposes.
You will note that a lot of UFO sightings are of triangular craft. I’ll bet each and every
one of these is a secret military aircraft. The point that I am trying to get across is that
finally, as you can see, 8 years later, drone technology is coming out into the open, but if
my informant is correct, you will be even more stunned when you see what is coming in the pipeline.
Saddam could therefore make use of drones for delivering some weapons, as has been suggested,
and this is an idea with a lot of potential. I would imagine with his technology that the only
drones he could really use are ones for spying or bombing. But, I am sure they would be vulnerable
to anti-aircraft systems and so he would have to use them carefully in ways which would make
it difficult for them to be shot down.
I would like to return to the idea of shooting down US aircraft because I feel this is the
key tactical element Saddam should be concentrating on. If he could stop his infrastructure
being surgically destroyed, then he would slow down the US advance considerably, and US
casualties in battle would climb exponentially. The war in Afghanistan has shown once more,
the US reluctance to sustain lots of battle casualties. If Saddam could save his cities
from bombing strikes, then US ground forces would be bogged down considerably, and the USA
would be forced to use more missiles – which are very expensive.
Saddam could also score a tremendous psychological victory by either holding off some of
the USAF planes or by causing casualties. If he could regularly shoot down a few planes a
day it would cause tremendous anxiety among US Forces and could slow the war down and bog
things down in a big way. This could sway more Arabs to his cause. The key element he would
have to demonstrate is the ability to inflict some regular and consistent damage on the USAF
and then a lot more things would start working in his favour.
I find it hard to believe that Iraq does not have the capability to shoot down US aircraft –
even Stealth ones. Even using simple weaponry you must surely be able to do this, and I am
mystified that he and his allies have, in all this time, not yet demonstrated the ability
to do this. Unless he perhaps does have something up his sleeve.
Clearly air-to-air combat is hopeless for him because his pilots and equipment are too
outclassed. But there must be some potential solutions to the problem.
Tactically, there is very little hope for Iraq, except if they could somehow get certain
weapons, or even specialists to help them. In the last Gulf War, it was said that Russians
were manning the anti-aircraft guns in some places. But as we know, this did not help much.
I have heard that the Chinese have been helping Saddam to upgrade his anti-aircraft defences.
How much difference the Chinese weapons will make, remains to be seen.
One thing which I thought was pretty stupid during the Gulf War was when the Iraqi AA
[anti-aircraft] batteries were firing randomly all over the sky at night. It seemed as if
they were not hitting US aircraft at all. Yet, the Yugoslavians shot down a Stealth aircraft –
which goes to show that it can be done. The secret is obviously targetting the weapons.
If I were Saddam, I would try to develop a mobile AA weapon which can be hidden away –
possibly even underground, but which can be driven out when needed. The secret would be
to devise a weapon which can protect the many military installations inside the cities
from the effects of bombing.
Do you remember how bombs rained down from US aircraft on Iraqi cities in the Gulf War?
That is the scenario for which I would try to devise a weapon which can inflict losses on
those hi-tech, and very expensive US aircraft.
It is easy to put myself in Saddam’s shoes because this is the way we whites in Africa have
fought several wars. Using shoe-string budgets we often devised “homemade” weapons which
went on to be very effective. So what could we do with the simple weaponry available to Saddam?
If I were Saddam, I would get some scientists, mathematicians and engineers together and
put them to work on various aspects of the problem. I would tell them to use easily obtainable
equipment to devise a means of countering US air attacks. I would try to use computer controlled
AA guns to shoot down US aircraft using one of two methods: (a) Aim directly at a plane, track it
and fire at it (b) Fire randomly across the sky, but according to a carefully calculated
computerised algorithm (which is updated with new information in realtime).
Clearly USAF aircraft are vulnerable to AA fire or else they would not be flying so high as
they do these days, or attacking under the cover of darkness. So the first problem would be
to develop a type of AA gun which has a much higher muzzle velocity than current ones and
which can deal with aircraft at tremendous heights. This should be possible because as you
go higher, the air gets thinner and the wind resistance is less. Accuracy is not an issue
since the computer can merely make all the calculations that are needed. Exploding AA
rounds at tremendous heights might even be more effective in the thinner air than at lower
altitudes. I am sure Saddam can spend a few hundreds of millions of dollars in order to get
engineers who can crack this problem and to mass produce the millions of rounds necessary
for these guns.
Failing that, they would have to create a simple type of solid fuel rocket can be used instead,
although that would only work with Plan A below. It would probably be too impractical for Plan
B.
Note, the weapons I am suggesting below would be totally computer controlled – probably by
the kind of PC you have at home. All the aiming, firing, analysis, etc would be done by
the computer. Obviously humans would load the rounds, set up the equipment, etc.
PLAN A. Direct Aiming.
There must be a way of knowing a USAF plane is in the sky. Currently the USAF is knocking out
Saddam’s radars pretty efficiently. But there must still be a way of detecting planes. One
possibility would be to hide modile radar equipment until it is needed. But the other is to
simply find a totally different means of detecting an aircraft in the sky. If they can bounce
a laser off the moon then they must be able to bounce something, anything, off a plane. This
is termed active radar.
If they can currently jam radar waves, then surely you can use something else – like a beam of
highly concentrated light – either a laser, or an “almost laser” (a searchlight, or a variant
thereof). What you need is the gun/laser to scan across the sky at high speed, controlled by a
computer. All you need is any simple home PC, but properly programmed to control the gun/laser.
It could scan the sky at high speed left and right, up and down, shining its beam of light. It
must have an automated means of analysing the reflection of what is coming back – maybe using a
telescope which magnifies the reflected light on to a light sensor. As it pans back and forth in
all directions – but moving very rapidly, it will at some point reflect off clouds, or pick up a
background star – or reflect off of a US plane. A computer program must be written to filter out
all the spurious “noise” and reflections and then identify if this is possibly an aircraft. The
program must be written so that once it thinks it has identified a plane, it immediately locks on
to it. Within a few seconds, through tracking alone it will now know if it is a plane. According
to the angular movements of what it is following, it will know that this is a high speed plane and
not a cloud. Then it goes into action and starts firing – adjusting for speed and distance –
blasting away at the plane.
All you would need is a handful of such specialised batteries over a city which is under attack,
and they should be able to shoot up a couple of aircraft.
PLAN B. Random Fire.
This system would be based on the “gunship” idea, but in reverse. I am sure you are aware of
various gunships, like “Puff the Magic Dragon” of Vietnam fame, and its even more awesome
modern-day successor which was used in Afghanistan. The modern version has computer controlled
guns which lay down an unbeliebable amount of firepower in the direction of where the enemy
might be. What I am proposing in Plan B, is the ground based version of this firing back
into the sky!
This would require LOTS of firepower, maybe several dozen AA guns all
linked together and controlled by a single computer. They could be located in a relatively
small area. The logic would be to try to fire across the sky, not at a particular target but
like a shotgun, in the general direction of where the targets might be. Since an AA gun is not
a shotgun, one could still get the same effect by using intelligent computer control. In the
military, in our part of the world, they teach soldiers the concept of “double-tapping” – two
rapid shots more or less in the same direction at places in the bush where the enemy might be.
This would be a computerised version of the same thing, except it could fire millions of
rounds which cover a very specific area. The key here would be to put a few mathematicians
to work. The aim would be to try to make the batteries pepper the sky in possible locations
where aircraft might be.
What one would need is a mathematical analysis of how aircraft move, and how bombs fall (also
allowing for knowledge of their evasive manoevres after they drop bombs). A mathematician would
be able to program a computer to calculate areas where the planes MIGHT BE, and areas where
they definitely WON’T BE. The computer would use this to then start shooting in likely places.
Such a computer could also be fed, in real time, with information of where bombs are hitting.
Such simple information, coming from observers would then allow the computer to narrow down
where the planes are. Even something simple like knowing the direction of the attack (e.g.
South to North), would allow the computer to narrow down the areas where it is likely to
shoot. In this way, as the bombing progresses, the computer is getting more and more information
and hopefully is shooting more and more accurately. The bombs themselves would become a valuable
indicator of where the planes are which dropped them. For example, if bombs hit a
particular suburb, you could mathematically calculate all the probable paths a plane might have
flown in order for those bombs to hit there. So as bombs hit the ground, observers could radio
in this information, which could be typed into the computer. The computer would then immediately
calculate possible places to fire, and within a few seconds it would be peppering those parts
of the sky with fire. By feeding information into a computer, you would end up with it making
split second decisions, based on valid mathematical logic thereby firing in directions where
there is a chance of a probable hit, and also never firing in the same place twice. The bombs
hitting the ground would be the key in determining where the planes might be and then calculating
back to what height they might be, and where they might have travelled since the bomb was dropped.
Then the guns could fire into that direction allowing for the speed of the aircraft. But all this
would happen in a fraction of a second. It would also not give away the location of the ground fire.
In both cases above, since the guns are computer controlled, they don’t need to fire tracers.
Their fire will be “invisible” which will mean the USAF won’t know what is firing at them.
The guns could be located on trucks – normal trucks which are converted to house these weapons.
The trucks could then be driven out to a random location when an attack starts. The computer
cables could be plugged in and they could be up and running, fully loaded and prepared beforehand.
Any losses, even the shooting down of one or two planes during a bombing raid would have
a decided impact on US forces, their morale and also the morale of the Arabs.
That is what I would try if I were Saddam. Of course, the idea may have flaws in it,
especially with regard to whether the guns would have the velocity necessary to reach
the high altitudes where USAF aircraft are bombing from, but that would be the low-tech
approach I would try.
But Saddam’s main hope is not tactical, nor on the battlefield. His greatest successes resulted
from propaganda. Saddam’s most brilliant move, of all time, was the propaganda piece stating
that one million babies had died as a result of sanctions! That is atrocity propaganda at its
finest, and it has all manner of Americans and others up in arms against their own country.
Propaganda such as this of course really messes with women’s heads because women can’t stand
cruelty to children. What can be worse than a hysterical liberal woman who is completely
taken in by enemy propaganda, lies and exaggerations!! This is the last thing one needs in
a war. One needs cool heads and a clear understanding of the tricks the enemy will try on
you.
It does not matter whether one million babies really died or not. The issue is simple. The
leader of Iraq must bear the full responsibility for the path along which he has led his
country. He fought a massive war against Iran for years, and he invaded Kuwait. He is a
trouble-maker who has expansionist ideas in his region. He is itching to go to war with
Israel as well and tried to drag them into the last war. Saddam has clearly led his people
along a path of war and suffering for a very long time. If babies did indeed die because
of sanctions, then indeed he must be held responsible for leading his country to a
situation where the world thought sanctions were necessary. Of course, sanctions is also a
minor punishment for what he really did. It was a military mistake on the part of the
USA last time round not to knock him out when he was on the run (violation of the
military principle of pursuit). His country should have been defeated
back then. He is lucky he did not suffer the full brunt of US Military force back then.
He is lucky he got away with the casualties he did the last time. So rather than blaming
the West for the million babies who died he should be considering how many people’s lives
were saved because the USA stopped the war early and decided (against military logic), to
give them a second chance. But people don’t think of these things.
People in the West are too quick to feel guilt. People in the West also don’t think of the
guilt of their enemies. What of the many people whom Saddam has killed, and the needless
warmongering he has engaged in? What about those deaths? Forget it. People in the West
should learn to shrug off a lot of these allegations of guilt because those tossing it our
way are often just as guilty if not MORE SO by way of their own history. Nobody in this world
is perfect. But just because we have some sins on our side does not mean we must immediately
commit suicide. The enemies of the West, especially of the USA, can see that this type of
propaganda works well on people, especially liberals, who then keep on doubting the greater
things for which the West stands.
Saddam’s greatest asset has been that propaganda line. Furthermore, this time he can claim
he is not the aggressor. But that is only because his nuclear plans were nipped in the bud.
If they were allowed to continue then you can rest assured he would have been the aggressor.
We can all play dumb and pretend that MAYBE he would not have reasserted himself militarily.
But we can see that even the Gulf War did nothing to change his attitude.
Saddam’s best hope is that he can get the Arabs to actually go against Israel and the USA.
Israel and the USA should be an unstoppable force in the region. Only the entry of Egypt
could help to make things more difficult for them. It would be a great victory if Saddam
could get Arab nations to throw US forces out of their countries. Such an action would be
a supreme victory and would throw a real spanner into the US war plans. If the USA were
deprived of bases for their aircraft, or bases for their troops, then Saddam would stand
a chance of surviving.
The only other hope is that Russia would use its newly found “friendship” with Europe,
to cause the Europeans, mainly the Germans, and possibly the French, to come into conflict
with the USA. The Germans, French and Russians have business interests in Iraq. The Germans
I have been told, have also been assisting Saddam on the quiet – as have the Russians no
doubt. If the Russians, Chinese and Germans can help Saddam militarily, then there might be
hope for him. Ultimately, it might require the intervention of a major power, like Russia,
to cause the USA to back off.
Are the Russians prepared to let the USA conquer Iraq? Will they stand by and let one of
their biggest investments go down the drain? Or is this a situation best exploited through
propaganda by claiming the USA is conquering the Middle East to further the interests of
capitalism? The best hope for Iraq is that it continue to play the propaganda game by saying
that it is not really an aggressor, and that this time it was wronged by a warmongering
US President. Then maybe the Iraqis, Russians and Chinese can drag in the Germans, Arabs
and Muslims from across the planet into conflict with the USA. That would be their best hope.
If they cannot achieve that, then the USA will walk over them and knock them out. I note
that the USA is mobilising troops inside the USA, and also stationing naval forces in the
Pacific to cover Taiwan in case the Chinese try to make a diversionary move there. So
clearly, the US Military planners are covering all their bases very well. This bodes well
for their chances of success.
As a final note, President Mbeki of South Africa wrote a very strange letter to Saddam
Hussein which they made public here. It was a sort of two-faced message. In some ways it
suggested that we were friendly with him. Our government is trying very hard to pretend
that it is neutral, but in fact, it is clear that they are on Saddam’s side. But they do
not want to show this too openly. President Bush is set to visit South Africa in January,
and no doubt he will be having some words with our President to get him onto your side.
No doubt, our temporary loyalty can be bought – at the right price. But I am sure that our
government is on the side of your enemy as was shown by Mandela’s furious attack on
President Bush some weeks back.
There is no doubt in my mind that if, somehow, the Russians and Iraqis can get a viable
coalition together against Israel and the USA, that there are dozens of countries around
the world, just like South Africa, waiting for the moment when they can stick a knife as
deeply into America’s back as possible. Chances are, it will not work out that way, but
one must always allow for that possibility.
Etherzone Articles by Jan Lamprecht
Arming Blacks in Zimbabwe
Iraq’s Baffling Moves
The Secret Code of Terrorists
Your Survival Guide to Semantic Warfare. (Understanding the enemies of the West)
The WorldWide War on White People
Click here to see the Archive of Jan Lamprecht’s articles on Etherzone.
Links & Products:
For the most graphic farm murder photos on the Internet go to: www.AfricanCrisis.org/photos.asp
My Website is: www.AfricanCrisis.org
I can be contacted by e-mail at: [email protected]
My book : “Government by Deception” – Psychopolitics in Southern Africa is now
on sale in the USA.
Click here to read comments by famous Americans who have read the book.