tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872252.post110737270523206806..comments2023-10-01T04:39:40.541-04:00Comments on The Lipstick Republican: Inferential evidenceJamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00623031374944444521noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872252.post-1139169260937817732006-02-05T14:54:00.000-05:002006-02-05T14:54:00.000-05:00drugs at RAF WOODBRIDGE?Say it isnt so!!drugs at RAF WOODBRIDGE?<BR/><BR/>Say it isnt so!!Thomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587774285457458119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872252.post-1107793627221128162005-02-07T11:27:00.000-05:002005-02-07T11:27:00.000-05:00My point about trucks versus backpacks was that if...My point about trucks versus backpacks was that if you're part of a wanted organization and you can't move around with complete freedom, you will want to minimize your trips out - especially when you're going to be doing something you could be arrested or even killed for. It's a cost/benefit thing, as I see it: there's greater risk in moving a truckload (or more) of materiel than in moving one individual's backpack of materiel, but the truck can carry a lot more - you'd have to get many individuals safely in and out of the area of a weapons cache in order to restock your arsenal. So your chances of being caught are intuitively higher if you send many individuals on many trips than if you accept the greater one-time risk of sending out one truck on a single big run.<br /><br />Your Vietnam observation is a good one - didn't the Viet Cong and/or North Vietnamese use families, people in fishing boats, and long "antlines" of individuals with packs full of equipment as major supply lines? I seem to recall that the American military was shocked at how much they could move through the jungle that way.<br /><br />But the difference is that the guerrillas in Iraq can't operate out in the desert as readily as the Viet Cong could in the jungle - no cover. And if their strategy is (as it appears to be) causing maximum horror, they have to act in urban areas - not enough targets outside the cities. (I don't discount pipeline hits and such, but those don't make the news as much as "X Number Dead in Suicide Bombing.") So if a weapons cache is in a city, the terrorists have to travel through patrolled streets to get to and from the cache. I know when I see a line of ants (check it out, "ant" references twice in one blog) in my kitchen, I follow them back to their point of entry. If I were a military commander in Iraq, I'd certainly do the same - not just pick up the first suspicious guy I saw, but follow him back. And if a weapons cache is OUT of the city, the same applies, but your movements are even more obvious because you're going to a remote area.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00623031374944444521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872252.post-1107784264875906522005-02-07T08:51:00.000-05:002005-02-07T08:51:00.000-05:00I think you make too many assumptions based purel...I think you make too many assumptions based purely on faith to back your position. For example, why must insurgents be able to go on TRUCK to get ammo. You concede that individuals could go with backpacks but then rule it out. In fact, this is probably a very likely way. Guerrillas are often quite innovative and willing to do things in a difficult way if it is what will work. See, for example, Vietnam.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com