>I couldn't disagree more.

Look at the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan has a long history of repelling invaders, and it should be a complete mess. While it isn't a piece of cake there, the difference is that the local people and the regional jihadist don't see it as a colonial invasion like they do in Iraq. Failure to win the hearts and mind is a disaster. The hearts and minds were won in Japan, Germany and Korea, but not Vietnam. In Japan, Germany, Korea and Afghanstan we have/had genuine international occupation forces that were legitamitely trying to do the right thing. In Vietnam, the purpose was defeat the communists at any cost, even at the expense of the Vietnamese.

With Iraq, the invasion was done for the wrong reasons(s), so even if the US/Britain are now trying to lay the groundwork for a true democracy, they have lost credibility with Iraq and in the region.

The middle east believes that the West is out to destroy it. The Islamic/Arab empire was been in decline since Columbus. The west pushed Islam out of Spain and the Balkans. Jerusalem was retaken by Christian then Jewish forces. Turkey became secular. Post WWI, despite promises to the Arabs that they would be set free from the Turks... the Brits and French divided up the middle east into practical colonies. Having just finished a fight for democracy and self determination, they installed puppet dictators throughout the region. These dicators (their descedants and rivals) still rule the region. So under the best of circumstances, it is a battle to earn trust in the region.