[Movemout]

I respect your opinion but it is a matter of technology and firepower. If they mass their rifle platoons then we kill them. If they turn it into a guerilla war then one must assume that the native populace supports the current regime, which I don't believe. Remember, their trained soldiers couldn't wait to quit last time against us. They exhibited similar behavior each time they have attacked Israel. I can't imagine islamic civilians would be more loyal and steadfast than their soldiers. Living under tyranny does not engender those qualities that we most admire. However, your premise is well taken when you consider groups of determined resistors, e.g. the Jews at Warsaw who accomplished much with less than you posit.

Even the lessons of RVN are now forgotten when discussions take place about asymmetric warfare. The unchallenged assumption is that we were beaten by an unconventional guerilla force because of their determination to throw us out of the country. Untrue. They won that conflict in the newspapers of our own country, in the halls of Congress, and in executive office staff conferences. Our military application of availanle resources was limited by politics not by potential.

[johnny7]

We didn't fight the Republican Guard and we just drove their “expendable” troops back in disarray a couple hundred miles.

As for civilians fighting, a case in point are the “Sammis” in Mogadishu. Sure we dropped a lot of them but they kept coming.

Yes we left Viet Nam unbeaten but we couldn't destroy the Norths will to fight on. If we had left South Korea after the truce, I'm sure the end would have been the same.

Basically, you don't know how the masses will react to a full-blown invasion of their nation.

We were lucky in Afghanistan. There was a strong, well-equipted opposition force waiting to help out when we arrived.