This is quite simple actually. The problem is that people have no idea how to define "victory" in today's wars. We are already victorious. Staying and finishing the job implies that there is still work for us to do on the ground, but when the host government is as corrupt as what Vietnam's was in 1971, there is no job left to finish. Leaving a mobile force in the area will only leave them stranded without proper support as the host government continues to remain dependant on American muscle. And only part of this is and always was our fight.
In the case of Vietnam, we abandoned them when the North Vietnamese continued to defy their agreements and eventually re-invaded the country.
While I never agreed with the method in which this war was fought nor the idea that Vietnam had any strategic purpose for us to send half a million troops in the first place. But once that commitment was made and agreements signed, we should have stood by our ally regardless of how corrupt the regime may have been and continually worked to improve their efforts towards Democracy.
The applies even more so to the Middle East as there is a vast strategic interest in supporting allies there and preventing the advancement of terrorist regimes.
It doesn’t matter how corrupt the current regimes may be or how long it takes us to be there until their fledgling Democracies begin to bloom. These are, after all, nations that never had representative Government in their entire histories and these things take time. I don’t care if we have to be there for 100 years. It is the ONLY viable strategy that will have a chance versus the failed policies of the past decades.
Our mission in Iraq was to destroy the dictator and offer Iraq an opportunity at democracy. We accomplished our mission and it is up to Iraqis to follow through on their end for the rest. It will be their success or failure.
This statement is incorrect; our mission in Iraq was to enforce the agreements and UN resolutions the despotic regime of Saddam spent a decade ignoring. As part of that strategy, Saddam’s regime was to be replaced with a representative Democracy in an effort to prevent another despot from taking over an oil rich nation and create future problems.
Again, if we have to be there 100 years from now; that should be the goal in order to promote Democracy and peace in the region. Nothing can defeat terrorism more surely than education and prosperity. Those are the long term goals and they can only be achieved through a Democratically elected representative government.
The same is true for Afghanistan. The Tali-Ban was removed from power and Al-Queda's base shattered in quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is no longer a physical player. But the vast corruption in the Afghani government has not allowed the Afghanis to step up. Afghanis have failed. We have not. It is time to stop fooling ourselves into thinking that we have to "fix what we break," especially considering that this region was already broke.
Again based on my above comments, I vehemently disagree with this notion. We have to be committed to spend the next 100 years supporting Democracy if that is what it takes.
When it comes to this Afghani/Pakistani region, our roles need to be relegated to punishment. We should pull our troops out and strike as needed via UAVs, missiles, and special forces launched from sea bases.
Here we are in agreement but we also need on the ground intelligence.
Our role as a "nation builder" must be defined into more practical terms. We have to understand that no matter what we do, we can and always do come home. The failed will always be these people who can't fathom a world beyond tribal allegiance, religious extremism, and corruption and oppression.
We spent 60 years in Europe after WWII and it was a stunning success in promoting peace and prosperity. Why should we suddenly believe this issue in the ME should be treated differently?