On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:34:40 -0700, retrogrouch wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:31:00 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
wrote:


In the U.S. campaigns in other nations, the Military is supplied by a
friendly and cooperative civilian infrastructure at home in the U.S. The
argument was made that a despotic, tyrannical, Military would be
immediately deprived of its support infrastructure here in the U.S. and
would only be able to continue operations until food and ammo ran out.

I admit that it's an interesting argument.


Bah, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Supply lines may the weal link, but
it's a common logistical problem that militaries are used to dealing
with.

Supply lines in Afghanistan and Iraq are controlled by U.S. Civilians and
originate in the U.S. The argument made is that the U.S. civilians would
no longer support those supply lines. They'd simply disappear and the
military would wither on the vine.

I'm not saying I support or oppose the position, either way. What I'm
saying is going "bah, it's a common problem" while doing the Dogbert wave
doesn't explain why it wouldn't be an issue.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk