Meanwhile, without the forces necessary to occupy the areas we defeat, the terrorists will simply rush back into Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, as we move on to the next stage.
That's not to mention what state we'd be in should China or Russia get uppity. Or what about if the Commies that are on the march again in Central and South America decide the time is right to go after Mexico? Once upon a time, we had a "two and a half war" posture, which we should never have dropped. No, we need a much larger military. Period.
Oh yeah, and we need to get the damn politicians and diplomats out of the way and let slip the dogs of war.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Herein lies a good deal of the trouble.
We have leaders that expect a small, highly professional force to succeed in the absence of real support.
The much maligned Rules of Engagement are an extention of our lack of national will. While it's good and reasonable to expect a high standard of professionalism and mercy out of our troops, these rules are different. It's moral cowardice on the part of our leaders.
It basically says, "We're sending you to war. We expect you to win, because winning is imporant enough for you to die for. It's not important enough for me to risk my political standing, though, so don't do anything that might look bad on camera, or I'll throw you to the wolves. And don't count on my support if the going get's rough, either. Popular opinion might change, and I wouldn't want to risk my Senate seat. I worked hard to get here, you know."
Inspiring.
Don't think that everyone from al-Qa'ida to the average American doesn't subconsiously understand what our lack of will to take the gloves off means. Everyone understands, on some level.
Expecting our troops to succeed when our leaders have already failed is a losing strategy.