We commenced a war in Iraq that was not beyond our matériel resources but which was beyond the resources which we as a democracy were willing to spend to gain victory.
I agree. We lacked resolve to do what needed to be done. We had, and have the capability, we just lack the willpower.
Even if we assume, as we should, that Obama threw away the fruits of our military domination in Iraq, it is probable that Iraq would have descended into some sort of civil war absent an American occupation force for generations.
Not generations. Generation. Islam can be destroyed in one generation (2 at most).
Even if we had achieved stable Iraq, so what? The war against Islam is not to be won in a two-dimensional geographic model like World War II.
Iraq should not have been just about Iraq but about establishing a beachhead in the previously moslem world. Creating as it were another Israel.
Islam is waging an asymmetrical war against the United States and Western values and United States and the West must respond not with 20th century ideas of conquering and holding territory, but with a whole new strategy.
This is correct. And that new strategy was clearly and concisely layed out by Ann Coulter, Conquer them, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. Iraq was never, or should have never, been just about holding territory. It should have been about eradicating islam.
The Japanese did not lose World War II because they lacked resolve, they were willing to sacrifice the whole nation in their cause but their problem was that their objective was simply beyond their capacity.
But we won WWII because we were willing if need be to sacrifice the entire country and we had the resolve to do so if need be and we had the capability to achieve the goal of destroying them. We still have the capability to destroy our enemies, we simply lack the resolve to do so.
In another way, our objective in Iraq was simply beyond our capacity because that capacity is defined by our democracy. As a democracy we simply were not willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve an Iraq that looked like postwar Japan or Germany.
I disagree, we have the capability. We lack the resolve to use that capability, because a portion of our population refuses to recognize the enemy. (liberalism is a mental disease)
In that sense, we misjudged and we committed a cardinal sin of risking national security.
I see no risk to national security in killing our enemies. In fact getting Iraq's WMD program stopped was a great good. It would have been a greater risk to let it continue.
It does no good to say we lost because we lacked resolve,
Except for the fact that it is true that we lost because we lack resolve.
in a democracy popular support of the war is as fundamental as munitions or foot soldiers-wishing does not change reality.
This is true. And this is what may doom us to die as a country. If our people will not recognize the enemy we may as well be buying our prayer rugs now because the end is inevitable (assuming the Lord does not return first)
But the game was never worth the candle, we are weaker, we are poorer, the enemy is stronger, Iraq is worse off, Iran is better off, and we still had no strategy to wage a 21st-century asymmetrical war against this enemy.
This is only because our leadership betrayed us. Right from the start they refused to recognize the enemy. Iraq as a nation was never the enemy. The Islamic radicals within Iraq (being sheltered by the nominally sectarian Hussein) were the first enemy.
After 9/11, President Bush should have declared that we were attacked by islam (because we were) and acted accordingly. If he had we would have no fear of assymetrical warfare at this point because most of the war would already have been won.
There would be no, or precious few, moslems in the United States. They would have been deported, converted or executed by now. Mecca would still be a glowing ash heap and the moslem psyche would be irrepairably crushed. (we would have proved that their all powerful allah couldn't even protect his most sacred shrine. the moslems respect nothing more than strength and proving their god was weak would have destroyed them).
After 9/11 any further attacks on us or the west by moslems should have been dealt with in overwhelming fashion. Attack one of our restaurants, we nuke your capital. Islam would cease to exist shortly.
Why was this not done? Lack of resolve.
I think part of the problem is far too many people in America (I hesitate to call any democrat or liberal an American) have bought into the "limited warfare" fallacy. War is only won when the enemy is totally defeated and has lost all will or capacity to resist. The USA has won every war that it set out to fight when it executed real war against it's enemies. It has eventually lost every war when it practiced "limited war". Again, lack of resolve.