..." the suicide bombers are hopelessly ineffective, reduced to ONLY seeking to change political situations in foreign countries because they cannot affect the MILITARY situation in their own---and the media plays a role in that."
War is an aspect of politics. "An extension of politics by other means" as Clausewitz put it. War is politics using violence as a tool.
Perhaps you remember the war in Viet Nam. America lost there. The attack that knocked us out was political and here in the USA.
The attack that knocked us out was political and here in the USA.What knocked us out was the incompetence of our political and military leaders. In chosing to back what was a crumbling French colonial regime we were not on the right side. In addition to that little bit of strategic bungling, destroying the livelihood of peasants by things like carpet bombing did not win a lot of converts to our side either. Sure made a hell of a racket though.
Of course. You and DevSix make my point: the very fact that these bozos CANNOT defeat us militarily means that they must make use of a SECOND-BEST approach, one that has only minimal historical success---that you can change the minds of a foreign electorate (ours) before their army wipes you out.
I would argue that it is LESS likely to happen again PRECISELY because of Vietnam . . . but you'll just have to read my book, "America's Victories: Why Americans Win Wars, and Will Win the War on Terror," to find out why :)
Hint: I have a chapter called "Protestors Make Soldiers BETTER," and show that in fact the Vietnam protestors may have cost us one war (a turnover) yet given us four consecutive vitories (four TDs).