On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:35 PM, SA wrote:
> On Iraq, the balance sheet for the US is ambiguous at best. For Saddam Hussein, though, it was a total loss, and that counts for something. In Iraq and Afghanistan combined we've lost 600 soldiers a year over nine years. In Korea we lost 12,000 a year over 3 years. Vietnam was much more of a clear loss for the US than Iraq was - and yet even there the damage was very temporary.
Two more points: to much of the world, the U.S. military looks musclebound - "strong" in theory but unable to accomplish its goals. There's a lot less awe of its power than a decade ago. And the decline I'm thinking about is playing out over decades, which is why things like Paul Kennedy's book and the CFR article are just points scattered around a downward-sloping trendline.
Doug