Of course not. But our people are dying at the same rate that they were when the war was in its 'hot' period. And the 'lethal machinery' that is killing our troops is in the hands of the enemy.
All I'm saying is that if we're going to win like WWII, then we need to fight like WWII. If we're going to fight like Vietnam, then we need to cut our losses early. Especially since the enemy wants to finish the job for us in this case. All of the Muslim world needs to be depopulated, if we can't do it, then we need to make sure they do it for us, like in Lebanon or Gaza.
It’s doubtful that we’ll ever win a war like we won World War II, or fought like Vietnam, or Afghanistan — each being its own unique challenge. That is the primary mistake in calculating wars — fighting the present one as though it is the last, or some other. If it were that easy, than the Democrats and demagogues would be right.
I think the worst thing now is for everybody to be the commander-in-chief, when we have a good one, and I doubt that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton could do better (just going on their proven track records).
Of course we’d prefer to win every battle with zero casualties — but I think we have a president who while not infallible, probably does the job better than anybody else could — and I think we need to allow him to make those calls and determinations.
I think he’ll do it far better than the Matthews and Olbermanns of the world will — and of course, Katie Couric.