I am old enough to remember 'Nam, and Johnson and McNamara playing
their games, sending messages, and wasting lives while doing it. The
men and women wearing uniforms were insulted by those who objected to
that war, but the real objection should have been directed at the
leadership.

It was bad policy, or no policy. Nearly every conflict model suggests
if one side goes in with overwhelming force, total bloodshed will be
reduced. It took less time to end WW2 than this conflict, or for that
matter 'Nam, because the leadership lacked the courage to plan so as
to win and give the people in uniform all they need to finish a job
with a defined endpoint.

'Nam was a shame and we have a wall with 55,000 names on it because of
failed leadership. A shrine to those who fell in Iraq might have an
identical story. We weep at the graves in Normandy and elsewhere, but
most would agree the blood shed there, although tragic, brought a
worthwhile end. At the Wall in Washington I am as likely to curse as
weep because of the stupid waste of lives.

The ending in 'Nam and Iraq to not justify the means, and one could
argue Truman erred in Korea as well.

In time the US will become a minor power, and historians in China or
whomever is the world leader then might study this country's path from
about the 1950s onward to understand our decline as a world power.
Maybe their study will help them avoid making the same mistakes.

Tina