Like Vietnam, the political will to fight a
WAR is not there; our politicians want to fight a
"war" to prevent offending groups of people who hate us in the first place. The battle against the enemies we are fighting (and not fighting) in the Middle East are not being 'lost' on the field of battle... they are being lost on Capital Hill.
When I was arrived Iraq in 03-04, we had a 'no call' policy; if we considered ourselves in danger, we could open fire without calling for approval. We were required to call for permission for certain things, and forbidden from entering into or firing upon mosques.
By the time I left, the 'wiser heads' in Washington had decided that we were to call for approval to engage... even if taking fire. That's not being at war; that's the same rules I operated under stateside while helping with Law & Order duties in the wake of Katrina.
You can't fight a war if you have to ask permission to fight back... or carry the fight to the enemy, for that matter.
If we had been sent to conquer Iraq and Afghanistan we could have (and did!) accomplished the goal in short order. We could have easily installed a friendly regime and then left, secure in the knowledge that our interests in the area were protected. We did not do this... and we are now paying the price.
My personal point of view- if you're going to go through the time and trouble to topple regimes hostile to you, you'd better follow up with the intention of making a regime that will support you... if not, it gets too expensive to justify.
Skybird - much, if not most, of the looting you speak of was carried out by the Iraqis themselves. This wasn't
Kelly's Heros in reality.
