From Vietnam we could have learned that a person fighting on their homeland for their homeland with the support of the population against a foreign force can't be beaten. Subdued for a time, maybe, not beaten.

Applies to Afghanistan and Iraq, two propositions lost when the US gave up on hearts and minds and concentrated on force. It was lost going into the battle, and turned into a rout with Abu Ghraib.

And that a person fighting a religious battle, for his beliefs, on their homeland and who is willing to die, with the support of the population has an advantage over the person who is fighting for lies (regime change, WMDs, nukes, democracy, etc.) away from their homeland.

A brave, courageous Commander in Chief following the rules of war ordering 500# bombs dropped from airplanes on civilians is no match for the cowardly bastard wearing or driving a bomb who won't fight by the rules. (One of the disadvantages of being civilized, I suppose.)

For the US it's been a losing battle all the way. The propaganda, that every enemy action was a "last gasp", "death throes", "desperation", is clearly nonsense. Everyone can recognize that.

In the small print they've said "it's gonna be a long, difficult struggle" and in the big print "we should be able to start reducing forces in 6 months". In the meantime, of course, they increase forces incrementally. Not decisively.

The "big push" is doomed, not because folks are giving up, but because it's like the last "big push" and the one before that and the one before that. Can't work against people fighting for their religion or homeland when they are near their mosques, churches, synagogues or on their own soil and are willing to die.

Arf