[Pukin Dog]

I think some people are not going to be happy, until we line up in front of the enemy as though it was the Civil War. Asymetrical warfare has been used against the U.S. for the last 40 years, because no one can face us head on. Then, we start getting a clue about it, and a bunch of folks lose their heads, screaming QUAGMIRE. Screw this, it's Guinness time.

[livius]

Agreed. Johnny Walker for me...

[swheats]

I'm wondering if we've finally made the transition. Instead of using the huge machinery we've found our ground game in moving about taking out those we've taken names and locations on.

I sure hope so, I've had enough of hearing our vehicles being blown up.

[Endeavor]

I like you, and your choice of beer.

[Rokke]

"Then, we start getting a clue about it, and a bunch of folks lose their heads, screaming QUAGMIRE."

You hit the nail on the head there. I'm not sure anyone outside of CENTCOM planning cells could have predicted how we'd execute our campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both plans were completely unique, completely unconventional and counter to almost every previously held tactical assumption used in planning a campaign. And they were incredibly successful. Our military has made a transition that has left almost everyone (including military veterans who retired more than a decade ago) in its dust. They are left to dredge up tired comparisons to WWII and Vietnam that are about as applicable as comparing an abacus to a Pentium 4. Quagmire my ass. The only folks stuck in a quagmire are the people who insist we fight 21st century wars with 19th century tactics.