Sdgrrl: As a military history buff, I’d be the first to agree that Vietnam was fought on the battlefield and lost on the home front.
I don’t think we’re in danger of losing 60,000 troops like we did in Vietnam, but, remember something here: Prior to Vietnam, the only serious reverse we suffered was the Korean War, and that ended in a stalemate. There was nothing in our history that prepared us for a loss and Vietnam changed the landscape, both historically and culturally, and it’s been with us ever since.
We’re now seven years into Afghanistan and our troop commitment stands at 60,000+ and some commanders are suggesting even more US troops are needed. Our NATO allies are a joke (according to a friend of mine who’s there, ISAF (the international contingent) stands for “I Saw Americans Fight”) and the various European countries, including Britain, are growing weary of the cost and casualties.
Also, don’t forget that Afghanistan proved the Soviet’s undoing and largely due to time and money, rather than casualties.
I hear what you’re saying about Iran, but does that mean we commit ever larger amounts of troops and more money and time, in what appears to be a growing quagmire?
I don’t know, either, but I do know this: We don’t have the money, soldiers or time to spend on this. Not if we plan on truly building a nation out of the mess that’s there presently.