It seems to me we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan the same way we did in Vietnam. We're basically sending out patrols and trying to find people who don't like Americans. Meanwhile our enemies are pouring over the borders from Pakistan and Iran with guns and bombs they use to ambush our soldiers. Our soldiers can't go into Iran or Pakistan to attack the source of the people coming from there so they're basically screwed just like the soldiers in Vietnam were who couldn't go into Laos or North Vietnam. Am I missing anything, of course... We have no clearly defined mission for our troops to accomplish. The civilians working with us there fear for their and their families' lives as they are typlically assassinated or kidnapped for cooperating with us. Who thought this was a good idea and why?

From what I have been able to glean, the folks who kicked off the war thought that it really was going to be a cakewalk. They didn't listen to anybody who disagreed with their analysis, and they bet everything - our military, our credibility, a lot of money and our future security - on the notion that democracy would flower and that fifty million grateful Mesopotamians and Afghans would act as the seed for pro-American stability in the Middle East. The reasons for going didn't matter; 9-11, WMD, al-Qaeda, no one would care what the excuse was once Iraq was transformed into a newborn democracy. But it didn't work out that way, and that had nothing to do with the ability or commitment of our troops, the opposition of citizens back home or even much to do with the interference of other countries. The U.S. government utterly misread the situation and sent the military into a situation that is now beyond retrieval with the current force levels.

Afghanistan is the same, only somewhat less intense.

To rule Iraq would require, in my underinformed opinion, a million men on the ground, another million sailors and airmen in support, the application of maximum brutality to capture or kill opponents and seize their weapons, the closing of all borders to stop movement of materiel, and the unambiguous threat to go apeshit on any country that tries to interfere. Plus the infusion of another couple of trillion dollars to rebuild the country, this time without half of it getting skimmed off. Toss in half again of the above for Afghanistan and invest twenty years worth of time, and then you'd see some progress. Maybe.

But I don't think we can afford it, and I am pretty sure that the American public doesn't care that much about those two countries to expend the blood and treasure.

There is no possibility of winning, if you happen to be an innocent in this world. The war was lost the day that jack-ass cheney decided to start the war. It's a war built around lies, deceit and profit. The only winners are the arms industry and the oil industry, which have both gotten exactly what they wanted, as cheney knew they would.

There is no possibility of winning, if you happen to be an innocent in this world. The war was lost the day that jack-ass cheney decided to start the war. It's a war built around lies, deceit and profit. The only winners are the arms industry and the oil industry, which have both gotten exactly what they wanted, as cheney knew they would.

No it was lost when the American people, not Cheney, waved flags and dug into their plates of Freedom Fries. Congress overwhelmingly voted to support the Iraqinam misadventure because the constituents were overwhelmingly in favor. They supported it not because of WMDs or other lies but because of ignorant patriotic fervor: 'rah, rah, off to war we go and let's kick some ass and show the world we are right'.

Now that the USA is humiliated and disgraced the 'blame game' points at bush and cheney when it should be Americans questioning the folly of flag waving jingoism. Fortunately Americans are intelligent and have learned from their misdeeds.

Is there even a war to win considering it's not reasonable for them to stay. Wanting to help Iraq? Pft.... More like establishing puppet government for own benefits.

Maybe controlling the oil is how we win. If that's the case I think they should let it be known.

Ah, you caught on. Controlling fuel resources sure helps with economy amongst many other things.

... Who thought this was a good idea and why?
Who is Bush's true constituency? (Hint: "I represent the haves and the have mores" -- Bush.) Are they now profiting beyond their wildest dreams due to the war? Yes they are. That's all there is to it.

Ah, you caught on. Controlling fuel resources sure helps with economy amongst many other things.


I would have thought so too but it doesn't seem to be working that way yet.