Yeah right, The Russians fought that war with conscripts and lousy equipment. And yes there was an element of politics and trying to do it on the cheap. We give the Taliban stingers and they have their way with the Russians who keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again.

Nevertheless, don't confuse the failure to win with the inability to win. Both the U.S. and the Soviets had the ability to win but choosing not to win may have been the wiser ultimate decision for both.

In the case of Viet Nam we got embroiled based on the faulty domino theory that was popular at the time. We could have won but not without the risk of starting WWIII. We knew that way before the casualties were 5 figures and since we knew full well we were not willing to risk a world war, we should have pulled out earlier. Instead we chose to drag it out with a losing strategy at the cost of thousands of lives, all for politics.

In the case of Iraq we won the war easily. A thousand years ago we would have sacked the city and went home to the parades. Unfortunately today's wars include the epilog of pacification and control. We have, in my opinion, botched this phase by grossly underestimating the force required to do the job. Perhaps the cost of using that force was too high. If so, we should have taken this into account before we invaded Iraq.

I have tried to make it clear that when I opine on what it takes to win I am not neccessarily advocating that action. I am simply saying that when we make the decision to use military force, failure is not an option. Everything must be considered. It does them no good to have me behind them if they can't generate a concensus that can be sustained. In the case of Iraq they had about 12-18 months of concensus. It seems the clock has run out.

As far as rewriting history is concerned, I suggest you read some history yourself and stop trying to self-educate yourself on pulp fiction and B movies. War is about resources and logistics. In WWII neither side was pulling punches. Technically there was virtual parity. Most of the winning by both sides was done on the offensive.

The German offensive failure in Russia was once again a matter of resources and logistics. Volumes have been written on the mistakes they made.

We won WWII because Japan and the Axis were outnumbered, outgunned and out resourced. The fact that they were evil didn't hurt but did not decide the war, it only contributed to their abject defeat.

As to my reverence for military commanders, some are good, some are not so good, some are idiots and some serve incompetent leaders. I can't help but notice how quickly Tommy Franks got out of Dodge when the actual war was over.

Most competent military commanders win by applying irrisistable force and sound tactics. Some win in difficult circumstances with brilliant tactics that appear brilliant because they won. No sane commander chooses to fight with inferior forces and historically they lose more than they win .

Since the offensive nature of WWII is so obvious I can only assume that by your statement that unrestaried force is not a valid offensive strategy, you must mean that it never works for those who start the war.

Sure Art, whatever. May your simplistic, holistic views bring you serenity.