Reply #5: The author makes the mistake

[Saintgermane]

of equating a quick tactical victory with strategic success. The point of military force is to accomplish by aggression what cannot be accomplished by diplomacy - to paraphrase Clauswitz.

The jury is out on whether the latest Iraq war will be a success or not. Too soon to call it either way. Certainly, if things continue as they are, or worsen, the likelihood of the U.S. achieving it's strategic goals - elimination of terrorism, a stable middle east with democratic, and western-oriented, governments, and a stable world oil market diminishes.

Vietnam, by any measure, was a tactical success - we won most every significant battle, lost 'only' 58,000 dead to the Viet Cong's several million, yet, we never did accomplish our strategic goals.

Whether or not one agrees with the current objectives, the objective assessment of whether the war is eventually 'won' or 'lost' must revolve around an analysis of whether or not the administration ultimately achieves it's stated strategic goals, not an artificial assessment of casualty ratios to this (or any other) point in time.

Even if we lose not another soldier, but fail in securing our objectives, we will have 'lost' this latest war.

For the record, I consider the war unjust, and my opinion is we are likely to fail in accomplishing our policy objectives.