Interesting comments, heartfelt, and thoughtful.

I'd like to add a couple.

First, it was a contest between a few thousand locals and as much of the military might of the US as could be crammed into or flown over the country. I don't know if the US could afford to do that very often.

There wasn't a lot of resistance compared to other campaigns. The people weren't very well armed, didn't stick around for a pitched battle, and a lot of them got away.

They had the advantage of fighting a force which very, very badly wanted to avoid casualties, too.

Second, regarding the Osprey, which looks to me like just a great aircraft. I hope it eventually works.

A relatively inexpensive surface-to-air missile could cost the US $50 million, or so, and 30 lives, a pop. In Bosnia the US Army spent $750 million deploying helicopters they were afraid to use, as they were too vulnerable to ground fire.

In a wider fight, against just a bit more sophisticated enemy, the Osprey would be exceedingly vulnerable, and need a lot of covering fire before being used for operations. Once in a while you could find a chopper pilot who would take fire. I'd bet the ROE for Ospreys are such that they won't take chances.

Third, regarding sea power. If there is only one small action in each ocean, it looks as if can almost go it alone. In a more protracted, or wider, campaign with slightly more sophisticated resistance calling for more covering fire, how long could sea power be adequate by itself? Absolutely superb as a rapid deploying force, I don't know how long it could go it alone under those conditions.

To someone who wasn't there, it looks a bit like a critique of a pro football team playing against a small college team. A lot of truth in what he said, not sure what he'd be saying had it been a conflict with a stronger force.

Arf