I posted the following to President-elect Barack Obama's transition website: http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision
The 10,000 Greek soldiers that battled their way through hostile territory after the Persians killed their generals, 4th Century, B.C.
American irregulars against the British Army, 18th Century
French Resistance against Hitler's war machine, 1940's
Viet Cong guerrillas against a super power, the United States, 1960-1970s
Iraqi "insurgents" against the superior firepower of the United States
Afghani fighters against the British, the Russians, and the Americans.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling on their home turf. The Greeks were trying to return to their home turf.
Except for the Greeks, all of these groups were battling against a foreign power with an accompanying "puppet" government. The Colonial Americans did have an advantage in that many of the politicians were against the occupiers. Even with that advantage, it took six years to get the occupying army to surrender.
Could it be that many of the population have no incentive to support the foreign-supported government? If there is not direct foreign-support, could such support be perceived? If such support is not perceived, could it be that the government is ineffective in providing basic services or is seen as corrupt? If the last, does an ineffective or corrupt government have the resources to buy the loyalty of its own ruthless army.
It is only when all these questions are properly addressed, can anyone, superpower or not, hope to bring peace and stability to countries where neither exists.
