I think you and I agree on that issue.
As far as the enemy in Iraq, the main difference is that we aren’t fighting an organized army from a any specific nation.
I would suggest that to at least SOME degree, we are, in fact fighting an organized army that was and still is supported by national governments... BUT there is great care taken by those parties to conceal the nature of their relationship.
Pakistan's government seems to be either unable or unwilling to effectively prevent our enemies using their territory as an "off limits to US attack" base from which to attack us in Afganistan, and to which to retreat to from Afganistan.
Iran's territory is likewise used regarding Iraq, but with a much more obvious tie to the official Government there.
Vietnam had the vietcong with massive support from the NVA. Even if Iran is helping the current fighters, it’s not the same as them actually sending their army (probably because they know they’d be slaughtered).
I think it is precisely because they know they would lose a direct nation to nation confrontation, that they conceal the nature of the official governments' involvement.
Much like Communism/Socialism, Militant Islam is not confined by national borders, is an ideology which has a stated intent of world domination, views the US as its chief impediment to achieving world domination, conceals its association with government officials (and others of influence) when beneficial, and capitalizes on the freedom in the US to undermine support for opposing their efforts globally.
...Had we held out another 6-12 months I believe the North never would have attacked the South like they did a year after the peace accords were signed...
I believe had there not been such successful effort to undermine domestic support for that cause by Kerry, et al, that the Communists and the Islamofacists aggressors since that time would not be emboldened knowing that the US military can be defeated by fomenting dissent for conflict at home.
I don’t disagree with you on a lot of points, I just feel that the threat faced from radical Islam is not as great as that from Nazism or Communism. There’s no way these countries (Iran and the like) could EVER hope to defeat us. If it came down to it, we could topple all their countries and destroy so much infrastructure and so many of their resource gathering capabilities that they would be unable to do anything for years if not decades (I’m not advocating that, just saying).
I don’t even really believe Communism was as big a threat as it was made out to be. I know I’ll get hammered for that but let me explain. The Russians (far more powerful than any of the countries we’re dealing with now) could never have defeated us in combat. By their own admission they concede 2 main reasons why they could never defeat America
1) Our military was not by the books like there’s was. We had competent officers on and off the battlefield that could be replaced by the men below them, so “cutting off the head” so to speak wouldn’t work on the battlefield because all of our soldiers could keep fighting. Not so for the Russians. They had a strict chain of command, and if that broke down, chaos would ensue.
2) The Russians said (just as Admiral Yamamota in WWII) that they could never invade America because every household would have a gun.
In addition to our military superiority, no matter how hard a government tries, central pllaning and communism don’t work. Communism and heavy socialism can’t sustain themselves because the system just sucks. I’m sure you know this. Eventually they adopt more and more capitalistic ideas until they’re no longer “communism”.
I’m not trying to say that Communism (or radical Islam) aren’t threats, but sometimes I feel like any questioning of our policies against them leads to being labeled a denier or a left wing hijacker or a pacifist. My 2 cents anyway.