You and I agree. My beef is either fight like we mean it or get out. I never thought I'd compare the WOT to Vietnam but with limitations on rules of engagement it can't be denied. Take off the gloves and fight like a man!
Putting aside small brush fire engagements (i.e., Grenada, Panama, etc.), they've all been either "Die-for-a-tie" or "win-all-the-battles-but-lose-the-war" type situations (Korea, Vietnam). Perhaps this made marginally more sense during the Cold War, with the Soviet nuclear arsenal threatening to engulf the world, but that threat ended de facto in 1989 and de jure in 1991.
I remember about a year ago when I expressed the sentiment in several threads that Fallujah should be leveled for both tactical and strategic reasons: tactical to destroy the insurgents and their fellow travelers in a sympathetic environ, and strategic to send a harsh, loud and clear message that the United States was done with fighting wars on the "limited" model, and back to the 1945 version of waging conflict: we win, you lose, period, a la the campaigns we waged against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. I was flamed to cinders, accused of being a troll, a liberal (!), and so on.
Here we are a year later, and as I'm sitting here typing this the newscaster in the background is saying that a group of Marines were ambushed, with six K.I.A. and many more wounded today...in Fallujah.
Rant now officially *OFF*.