So because we don't perceive a simple answer, we should pursue a policy
that history has already proven to be a failure? Have we forgotten the
Soviet experience in Afghanistan? Don's simplistic scenario belongs in
a Tom Clancy novel; it's fantasy.

In Afghanistan the Soviets couldn't accomplish in a decade what we
accomplished in a few months, so this may not be the best comparison.

Occupying a country and setting up a friendly (or "puppet") government is
not something to be taken lightly, nor should "success" necessarily be
measured by simply measuring the longevity of that particular government.
Often "success" is something far less measurable, and may not be discernible
for decades.

For example, Viet Nam, broadly seen as a failure of foreign policy in its
time, is more and more seen as a long, painful -- but necessary -- chapter
in the eventual defeat of Communism. And, with even longer perspective,
Viet Nam can be viewed as simply a continuation of the Korean Conflict --
another proxy war between America, the Soviet Union, and China.

Heck, I imagine in 200 years Korea and Viet Nam will be simply noted as
being "after-shocks" of World War II -- which itself is now being seen as a
HUGE "after-shock" of World War I.

Even our "failed" puppet governments in South America during the 70s and 80s
are now being viewed as battle-fronts of the Cold War. Installing a corrupt
leader in Guatemala may have appeared awful at the time, but in the titanic
struggle against the Soviet Union, even these "defeats" may have contributed
decisively to our ultimate victory.

History is fluid, and we are only in the earliest stages of what will be a
very long and nasty war. Don't be too hasty to declare our defeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"