Kinda like cavalry and Indians. You would have loved those odds, too.

Or Israelis and Palestinians.

For there to be a "war", there should be a force capable of resistance. Make sense?

Otherwise, rather than being a "smart" war, you have your basic slaughter.

Using the term "war" where there are insignificant casualties, where your own "friendly fire" (is any "fire" "friendly") kills damned near as many of your own people as the enemy demeans those who have been to a war. The American soldier is capable of fighting a war, is a dedicated, loyal, brave individual. Could do a job, if allowed. Can and has fought wars. Afghanistan wasn't one, and the dismal result is not because of the military, but because of the civilians.

Arf (2 month rotations, no casualties, and they're stressed out?)