Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>That's what I meant.  I wasn't clear.  These days, heavy casualties
>means losing, because the domestic population won't tolerate heavy
>casualties.  I mean in places like the NATO countries and Russia.  I
>think it comes from a combination of increased tv coverage and a
>large increase in a healthy distrust of government.

I'd agree that the reduced tolerance for casualties is connected to better
communications. That means people have a better idea now of what the facts
are - what the casualty figures on both sides are, not to mention more
information with which to judge the wider issues for themselves.

I suppose, to some extent, human life is held in greater regard too. We
don't regard life as being cheap as much as we used to. Perhaps.

>  You have to do it
>the way it was done in Iraq and Yugoslavia.  If there are heavy
>casualties among your own forces, you lose.

I'm not sure that is an absolute, I suppose it depends on what is at stake.
Obviously if everything is at stake, we would be prepared to 'fight them on
the beaches, fight them in the streets...' etc.

> If there are heavy
>casualties among the civilian population of the country you are
>invading, you can still win if you succeed in placing all the blame
>for those casualties on the other side.

But, as a general rule, you can fool all of the people only some of the
time. With modern means of communications and better access to information
I would imagine that the amount of time you can expect to keep everyone
fooled is far less than it was during the Crusades. Or even during the
Vietnam war.

[...]

>Yes, there are.  Public opinion *is* important.  That's why
>departments of defense have learned to manipulate it.

The only way they can do that is to restrict information. You can't
actually manipulate how people's minds process facts. But if you feel
garbage in, you'll get garbage out. Therefor the most useful thing we can
do to oppose unjust wars is to help bring the truth to the attention of the
public.

But we don't appear to disagree as much as I thought at first.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas