Actually, we do have the will and stomach to win wars-if they are run by competent leadership. We have had none of that with this administration. Also, our military was not designed for the nation-building business. Reagan and Bush Senior both understood this.
Then why did we lose the war in Korea? OK, maybe it could be argued that we didn't lose in Korea, but no one can say we won either. Ike was a well experienced General of the Army who ran the Allies' operations in the European theater for the last couple of years before VE Day, and he must have known that you don't go into a war unless you intend to win it. We now know that Stalin would not have risked nuclear war with the US over Korea because of our ability before ICBMs were perfected to virtually destroy his nation with long range SAC bombers carrying nuclear bombs, while his much inferior strategic bomber fleet lacked that same capability. And I believe that both Truman and Ike knew that even back then but decided to cave in to public demands to bring the boys home.
I still contend that our losses, yes losses, of at least two wars, that is if you include the probable pull out of Iraq, were in Viet Nam and will be in Iraq the result of the public's strong aversion to casualties and the consequent pressure on political leadership to get out of Dodge one way or the other as quickly as possible.
I am also of the opinion that the next two years will see us throw Iraq to the wolves along with our own self interests in that region because we can't take the heat so we'll get out of the kitchen instead. I hope I'm wrong and that Bush will stand fast as he has so often said he will. Actually that last part is more than just a hope, I believe Bush is dead serious when he says he won't cut and run. But the new peacenik controlled Congress will hold the purse strings, and Bush can't continue the fight without funding no matter how much he may want to.