Well, we know this...military leadership is the same now,

[mediaman007]

as it was in Viet Nam. We can conquer and destroy any country on the Earth. But we can't control any of them. Think about it. The only president since 1960 that understood how to use the military was Bill Clinton. He didn't bother sending in troops to Serbia, he did it by long distance.

The more army/marine leaders that you put on the ground, the more egos get in the way. Any military leader that understood the situation was dumped by Rummy. So Rummy now has lots of big egos telling him how great things are in Iraq. But none of those leaders dare walk down a street outside the Green Zone in Baghdad.

Just my one cent.

[bryant69]

1. I think you are right

We don't have any idea what victory is supposed to look like except for our troops not being there anymore. We took Saddam's army apart in a matter of days (which wasn't a surprise), but how do we win a guerilla war? We can't.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cclevel]

2. Do We Know?

But does anyone suspect this is going to be easy? I am curious how it was during ww1 and 2 and the type of resistance we faced. How long did it take us to stablize these countries and are we really being impatient? Just a few questions I am asking myself.

[mediaman007]

3. During WWII, we removed occupying forces in Europe and Asia.

As for Germany, the country lost a generation of men. The country was destroyed. There might have been some resistance, but it had to be token.

Italy revolted agains Mussolini, then it was occupied by Germany. I think that Italy lost a great number of young men too. So Italy was well on its way to creating a new government.

Japan was another story. Military leadership expected a guerilla war on the main Japanese islands. To avoid this type of war, Truman chose the atomic bomb (two times) as well as fire bombing major cities. There was no trouble after the surrender, because the Japanese culture was built on honor. They honored the surrender terms.

On the Iraqis front, who surrendered? Instead the U.S. brought in exiles to form the new leadership, much the same as they will do in Cuba.

[atreides1]

4. We Know This Much

WWI was based on financial survival, it seems that the Allied Nations fighting against Germany had borrowed money from the US.

With the fall of the Tsar and Russia withdrawing their forces, the Germans were able to concentrate all of their forces on the Western
Front against France and Britain.

If Germany had beaten the allies then the loans that the US had provided would never had been paid back.

With WWII there was a light at the end of the tunnel, there was a goal that was set. Yes there were prima donas like MacArthur and Patton, but the higher commanders like Eisenhower were able to keep
them in check.

All you have now are arrogant prima donas, whose only concern is to figure out primarily how to make themselves look good, sometimes at the expense of the troops on the ground.