re: What should the USA have done after 11 September 2001?

quote:

---

That said, IMHO, both Vietnam and Iraq were/are winnable wars for the USA

---

This is the fallacy - the war was WON in Vietnam after Tet and won again in Paris - it was the weak-kneed, progessive U.S. Congress that refused to allow lame duck Ford to reinforce and support that victory. The war was lost with guys like Kronkite and others saying things about the war. That plus the progressive protestors conveniently forgetting that it was their guy, President Great Society that, effectively, invented the war to begin with and that Nixon agreed to wind it down (it was won), "Peace With Honor" - and actually kept to his timetable, with reasonable actions taken necessary to secure victory.

Now, do you want to blame Nixon for the war being lost after he engaged in all of his extra-Constitutional chicanery to secure victory in an election he almost couldn't have lost if he tried? Guilty as charged - he'd been in Washington so long, he thought he WAS the law.

The same thing happened with all the mucking about in Iraq. Iraq was WON. It was over - twice, really - the conventional part early on in 2003 and again after the surge.

That victory has been rolled back (and Afghanistan is in jeopardy) because our collective political will for victory is NONEXISTENT in the post-WWII era. Nonexistent.

And a big reason for that is the constant assault by progressives on any military action taken by a Republican in the WH - the reason being, they are perceived as so weak on foreign policy, they don't foresee - EVER - a Democratic President having a strong reputation on national defense.

Heck, 3 in a row weren't bad - FDR, Harry S and JFK. Since then, they're 0-fer.