[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Ultimately I think the problem here is one of misplaced purpose. You cannot win the hearts and minds of those who are "in the crossfire" - because your presence puts them in danger that they would not face otherwise. Though your absence would simply trade one danger for anther. There are two sides to this - a military question and a humanitarian question. One must take precedence, and right now that has not happened. The military is even now, looking to balance the two, when they are equipped to answer only one.

As Petreus said, he feels the military needs more resources (read men, money and munitions) to "help stabilize" the government. But thats not a surge..... Its not the military's role to build a civil infrastructure - but they are tasked with it. It is the military's role to subdue, by any means necessary, elements that would threaten the goals we seek to achieve. The whole problem with this war is its being dealt with - with one hand tied behind the military's back. That is the biggest similiarity with Vietnam.

To win means hard choices - and thus the long term problems will remain in the middle east because no one is willing to answer the hard questions with real - hard answers.