Dr. Marcel Dirsus

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a misconception that a lot of people have that dictators are particularly good at waging war. And there are some reasons why one could suspect that. So one of the things that dictatorships are very good at is taking casualties, for example. So when the caskets come home or when injured people come home...

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a misconception that a lot of people have that dictators are particularly good at waging war. And there are some reasons why one could suspect that. So one of the things that dictatorships are very good at is taking casualties, for example. So when the caskets come home or when injured people come home...

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a misconception that a lot of people have that dictators are particularly good at waging war. And there are some reasons why one could suspect that. So one of the things that dictatorships are very good at is taking casualties, for example. So when the caskets come home or when injured people come home...

and they land back in the U.S., the American president is going to have a massive issue. And he's going to have that issue because people that come home dead or the people that come home injured are directly a part of the constituency that keeps him in power because he needs to win elections. And the soldiers coming home, their families and their friends and all of these people can vote.

and they land back in the U.S., the American president is going to have a massive issue. And he's going to have that issue because people that come home dead or the people that come home injured are directly a part of the constituency that keeps him in power because he needs to win elections. And the soldiers coming home, their families and their friends and all of these people can vote.

and they land back in the U.S., the American president is going to have a massive issue. And he's going to have that issue because people that come home dead or the people that come home injured are directly a part of the constituency that keeps him in power because he needs to win elections. And the soldiers coming home, their families and their friends and all of these people can vote.

If you have Vladimir Putin, you don't really have to be concerned about people from some Siberian village dying, because people in that Siberian village have zero influence on you staying in power or not. So that's one of the things that dictatorships tend to be much better at. But there are a lot of flip sides.

If you have Vladimir Putin, you don't really have to be concerned about people from some Siberian village dying, because people in that Siberian village have zero influence on you staying in power or not. So that's one of the things that dictatorships tend to be much better at. But there are a lot of flip sides.

If you have Vladimir Putin, you don't really have to be concerned about people from some Siberian village dying, because people in that Siberian village have zero influence on you staying in power or not. So that's one of the things that dictatorships tend to be much better at. But there are a lot of flip sides.

So first of all, what we just talked about in terms of coup-proofing is a massive issue for a lot of these militaries, because once again, they are not building militaries in order to actually fight wars. So when they're forced into fighting wars, they're in trouble. So one of the examples that I give in the book is a war between Iraq and Iran.

So first of all, what we just talked about in terms of coup-proofing is a massive issue for a lot of these militaries, because once again, they are not building militaries in order to actually fight wars. So when they're forced into fighting wars, they're in trouble. So one of the examples that I give in the book is a war between Iraq and Iran.

So first of all, what we just talked about in terms of coup-proofing is a massive issue for a lot of these militaries, because once again, they are not building militaries in order to actually fight wars. So when they're forced into fighting wars, they're in trouble. So one of the examples that I give in the book is a war between Iraq and Iran.

And essentially what happened is Saddam Hussein was a lot more worried about his own people and about his own security services than the Iranian soldiers. So what he did was he used almost the entire intelligence apparatus that he could in order to spy on his own people and on his own soldiers.

And essentially what happened is Saddam Hussein was a lot more worried about his own people and about his own security services than the Iranian soldiers. So what he did was he used almost the entire intelligence apparatus that he could in order to spy on his own people and on his own soldiers.

And essentially what happened is Saddam Hussein was a lot more worried about his own people and about his own security services than the Iranian soldiers. So what he did was he used almost the entire intelligence apparatus that he could in order to spy on his own people and on his own soldiers.

And as a result, you had, I think, three people in the entire Iraqi intelligence apparatus looking at Iran. And two of them spoke Farsi, the language that you need to understand to actually understand what's happening in Iran. So obviously, this type of machine is not good at then going to fight against Iran.

And as a result, you had, I think, three people in the entire Iraqi intelligence apparatus looking at Iran. And two of them spoke Farsi, the language that you need to understand to actually understand what's happening in Iran. So obviously, this type of machine is not good at then going to fight against Iran.

And as a result, you had, I think, three people in the entire Iraqi intelligence apparatus looking at Iran. And two of them spoke Farsi, the language that you need to understand to actually understand what's happening in Iran. So obviously, this type of machine is not good at then going to fight against Iran.

But what he gradually realized is that, OK, the Iranians coming closer, they're not quite within range of my palace yet. But now Iranian soldiers are starting to become a bigger issue than Iraqi soldiers. And in the case of Saddam Hussein, he could still pivot because Iraq is a comparatively powerful country, but has resources that it can trade.

But what he gradually realized is that, OK, the Iranians coming closer, they're not quite within range of my palace yet. But now Iranian soldiers are starting to become a bigger issue than Iraqi soldiers. And in the case of Saddam Hussein, he could still pivot because Iraq is a comparatively powerful country, but has resources that it can trade.