[Valin]

It's not a good thing. All it does is expand our defense responsibilites far beyond the United States

Weather we like it or not we have a emipre (after a fashion) Not an empire like the British or the Soviets or the French had, but one in that we dominate the world economically, culturally, militarily. We got it as a result of the cold war (I'm telling you anything you don't already know)That being said, the wporld is becoming a small interconnected place and is becoming more so everyday, and we must be involved. The days are long gone (if they ever really existed) for America to be in isolation.

The lackluster (to put it mildly) performance of the "Iraqi" military is proof of this.

Unlike the performance of the American Army in the revolutionary war and the War of 1812. My point is that given the fact that they are starting from ground zero, they're not doing to bad.

[katyusha]

"Unlike the performance of the American Army in the revolutionary war and the War of 1812." Considering what they had to work with, and also the fact that, unlike the Iraqis, they had no "Sugar daddy" backing them (yeah I know about Lafayette and France, but they jumped in when the US was already winning the Rev. War), the Continental Army and the US Army actually did pretty well (and yes I know all about the defeats at Bladensburg, MD and the burning of DC, but those involved mostly militia, not regular US Army troops). The splendid performance of the tiny US Navy in the 1812 war should not be overlooked either. Point is that the Iraqi Army may (repeat may) be the South Vietnamese Army redux. We all hoped back in the 60s and early 70s that if ARVN said its prayers and ate its vegetables it would, one day, be able to stand on its own two feet. Didn't happen.