Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ernie.berkeley.edu!tedrick
From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The Sandinista Problem II:  The Home Front
Message-ID: <12288@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 06:34:46 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12288
Posted: Sun Mar  9 06:34:46 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 00:16:05 EST
References: <141@hhb.UUCP> <12256@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <89@cad.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <89@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes:
>In article <12256@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>> >The invasion requires
>> >strong support or it is doomed at the outset.  
>> 
>> This part I disagree with. The trick is to finish the invasion quickly.
>> As long as you have a quick victory, you will have support from most
>> of the population. If you blow it and get entangled in a long drawn
>> out struggle (war of attrition) then your support will erode.
>
>What you prefer is to present the American people with a fait accompli,
>as Reagan did with Grenada. The very essence of democracy. Really Neat!

No, I think you missed the point. The point is that public opinion
in a democracy is fickle. If you present them with a quick victory
at little cost, you are likely to be well received. If you get in
a war that drags on for awhile, public support is likely to erode.

I prefer not to have wars in the first place.

Why do you make inferences about my preferences when I am discussing
a problem in military theory? I don't see the logical connection.