>>>>
>>>>I seem to recall a couple of wars in the first half of the last century in which we participated. I am not claiming we did it all by ourselves, certainly not, but IMO both of them would have turned out differently if not for U.S. involvement. Would you rather we all spoke German now?
>>>
>>>I think you anticipate in this post much more then anybody ever said.
>>>There is imo real danger for history to repat itself for the third time in last 100 years. That is not because America is good or bad country, but because circumstances and forces driving things out of controls are quiet simillar. Especially to pre ww2 situation. Great market crush, great depression, trade/resource wars across the globe etc. Almost all war vortex ingredients are there.
>>>This is what is scarry. This time China is rising giant. Do You think western military machines will just wait iddle to be eventually overtaken in power by Chineese ?
>>
>>I don't think China is going to overtake us any time soon. Everyone thought Japan was going to do that 30 years ago and that sure didn't happen. I also don't see the U.S. trying to conquer the world militarily. Heck, we can't even win a war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
>
>As the time passes by, more and more looks like Iraq and Afganistan were not wars fought to be 'won' and then troops to happily go home. If goal was just to hunt down AQ or topple Saddam, both those goals are achieved, so why aren't the troops leaving ?
>Looks like troops are sent there with intention to stay as long as possible, as part of strategic military presence in this part of the world (Middle East / Central Asia). Collin Powel talked about it more or less openly few decades ago and it allmost all came true. (Zbignew Bzezinsky's 'world chessboard' ?)
>There are huge oil wells in that neighbourhood (60% of remaining world oil?), while increasingly powerful and oil dirsty China is just 'few blocks' down the same road. Does not look like future happy suburbia to me.

That's a valid point about Iraq and Afghanistan not having been fought to be won like the major past wars. The so-called "war on terror" is even more so, a phrase I dislike. If it's a war, what army are we fighting? Who is going to surrender? No one, that's who. They are not affiliated with any one nation or organized coalition of nations. Every time we strike a blow a thousand new volunteers join the cause. Vietnam was a very frustrating war for us and that was limited to a relatively small geographic region, with an opposing government in place. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are like Vietnam in the funhouse, except it's no fun.

I would hardly call Afghanistan a closed book. The Taliban still control some areas, Al Qaeda is helping them out, and Iran is involved up to its neck. We have announced that we will pull out but I'm not sure we will have accomplished much there. Or Iraq either. Maybe the Bush government really was led astray by faulty intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. In any case the minute we're gone Iraq will revert to religious and ethnic anarchy. We were going to bring democracy to the Middle East -- that's a good one.