The U.S. has the most technologcally advanced military in the world. We also have enough money to make sure our people are fully trained. This really becomes an issue when it comes to air power. It takes a shitload of cash every time an F-14 goes up for a training mission. Same goes for driving taks around and blowing things up with them. Most countries just can't afford to give their military the training we do.

The problem comes when we start to define what "winning the war" really means. No country in the world could invade the U.S or any of our possesions and "win". We won the first war with Iraq, the goal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and we did it. But what does "winning" this current war with Iraq mean?

If "winning" in Iraq means a regime change than we have already won. If it means turning Iraq into the 51st state with a Taco Bell and 7-11 on every corner there's no way we can do it. The U.S. has never been an effective occupying force. We do not have, nor would the rest of the world support, the pure brutality it would take to completely conquer and take over another nation.

There will always be a signifigant number of people in a defeated country that will resent our presence and fight back. Vietnam is a perfect example. It's not a very popular idea but many educated people now say that we basically won the war for the communists and that there is a very good chance that the communists would not be in power today if we had not started to mess with Vietnam as soon as WWII was over. Think about it, for hundreds of years Vietnam had been under foriegn control: first China, then Japan, then France. Then, as soon as it looks like they'll be on their own we set up a puppet government and start telling them what to do. Many of the Vietnamese fighting against us were not fighting for the communists per se. Instead, they were simply fighting against yet another foriegn power trying to control them.

Which brings us back to Iraq and how do we define "winning" the current war? When should we pull out entirely and declare victory. We can't leave too soon or the country will fall apart. But, if we stay too long we are likely to continue to build up resentment in the people we are trying to help. I really don't know what's best in this case. I just hope whatever happens it works out in everyone's best interests.

As far as Iran is concerned, it looks like the big concern is one nuclear facility, right? So our goal would be to shut that facility down. A few well targeted cruise missles and the goal has been accomplished. Maybe. But would that just stir up a hornet's nest of it's own?

Bottom line, nothings simple in this game. We like to say the President should do this or do that but every action has a reaction. From what I can see, there are no right answers. We can only hope that the lesser of two evils is what is chosen