Comparisons between Iraq and the previous military campaigns aren't really valid, when you consider that in those wars this country demonstrated that it was willing to go to great lengths to win, come hell or high water -- and PC bullsh!t be damned.
I'd say comparisons are still not only valid, but absolutely required to put the conflict into perspective.
And we haven't always been willing to pay the price. In fact, WWII is a good example, in many ways. We could have stopped the Axis several times before the big one broke out -- the Rhineland, Spain, Libya. But the US public was against getting involved.
Even once the big one started -- Americans didn't care about saving France, England, etc, from the Nazi boot. Only when we, specifically, were sneak attacked militarily by one of the Axis powers did we even lower ourselves to finally take a side and fight for whats right.
I'm afraid the paralells to WWII are not only instructive, but frightening.
Comparisons between Iraq and the previous military campaigns aren't really valid, when you consider that in those wars this country demonstrated that it was willing to go to great lengths to win, come hell or high water -- and PC bullsh!t be damned.
I agree, but I also hold the Administration responsible for our unwillingness to do what it takes.
In WWII, we had shared sacrifice. We had rationing to help the War Effort. Paper drives and ration cards. In the buildup to this war, we were assured that we wouldn't have to sacrifice anything - Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.
The biggest sactifice the Administration asked from the American people was that we keep right on shopping. Any wonder that we no longer have the stomach for war?