It seems to me that what usually starts out as a war of conquest, if it's not "won" rapidly, turns into a war of attrition. Taking for example, WWII. As much as possible the Japanese and German infrastructures were left in place, or those civil functions performed by Allied personnel. There was enough cohesiveness in those societies that they held together until a full measure of order could be restored.

In Vietnam, was a successful war of conquest turned into a war of attrition. There, you had the French colonizing it, and that worked for a while. Vietnamese infrastructure. However, after WWII the Americans first with French surrogates and then themselves tried to maintain a presence in part of the country simply by wearing down the North Vietnamese and those South Vietmanese who wanted to unify their country.

So, the US was fighting a war of attrition, going for body count, trying to kill 'em all, or enough of 'em to discourage 'em. The deciding factor in a war like that is the resources one is willing to devote to it, and the motivation to keep devoting them. The North Vietnamese were fighting for what they perceived as their country, much as you and I would fight for the US if it were imperiled.

The citizens of the US were sold on the war as a fight for some abstract "domino theory" as well as for "freedom" and "democracy" for a series of corrupt puppet regimes in the South. The US soldier was fighting for his buddies, fulfilling a duty, not some pie-in-the-sky for those folks for whom there were a series of derogatory names. In my humble experience the average American over there cared A LOT for a very few individual Vietnamese, and not one whit for the rest of 'em. Didn't understand 'em and didn't trust 'em.

The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were willing to die for their cause. The South Vietnamese were largely indifferent. They certainly weren't enchanted with fighting other Vietnamese. There were many, many exceptions to this, a lot, and they were often embedded with US units. We wanted desperately to come home. We took chances, it's true, and the biggest ones were to take care of a buddie. And some people viewed it as a necessary punch on their career ticket. They wanted it more. And all they had to do was keep coming at us, and eventually we'd have to go home. It was inevitable.

In Iraq, they are fighting a combination religious war and a war against a foreign occupying army. (We don't hear much about the "Coalition of the Willing", anymore, do we?) They are willing to die, for their religion, for their country. We aren't. Have you ever been in a fight with someone who didn't care if they got hurt? Just didn't care? While you did? If you don't kill 'em you'd better get the hell away, 'cause they'll just keep coming at you. Not a good situation.

There cannot be "peace" unless there are troops willing to point a gun at everyone all the time. Bush was never willing to commit the necessary troops, and by dismantling the infrastructure guaranteed the chaos necessary for an insurgency to flourish. The people were forced to look to the militias for security.

They have won through attrition because the US wasn't willing to learn from history and leave the infrastructure, wasn't willing to devote the resources, and couldn't guarantee the safety of the various factions of the population. In fact there are some who believe the US allowed persecution of the Sunnis, which insured they'd fight back, and guaranteed a civil war.

The US destabilized the country by allowing looting ("Stuff happens" - Rumsfeld), dismantling the police forces and removing all trace of a Baath influence. They didn't do that in either Germany or Japan, by the way. By now the hard feelings between the religious factions have grown to incredible proportions. How many of your brethren need to die from holes drilled in their heads before you develop some bitterness and desire for revenge? And they are willing to die for it. Suicide bombers are powerfully motivated, and there seems to be only a shortage of targets, not volunteers.

Time to get the hell out. We ain't gonna win and it is not getting better. Temporary tactical advantages are nice. They are not a substitute for a winning stragegy. They want it more and they can be patient, outwaiting the temporary superiority the US can gain. How many times have we "taken" Fallujah, until the city is decimated? They were provided the proper environment to flourish, they have the resources.

The plan was stupid, relying as it did on Conservative propaganda instead of reality. Never believe your own bullshit.

Arf