Ask anyone what the United States' best war was, the quick response will be WWII. Ask anyone what our worst war was, they will either say Vietnam, the conventional answer, or Iraq II, the fashionable answer.

What is the obvious difference between WWII and Vietnam or Iraq II? Well, I wasn't alive for Vietnam, but from what I hear it has to do with the tactics. In WWII, the United States fought the war how war has been successfully fought since the dawn of man; we convinced not only the enemy soldiers but the population behind them as well that no matter what they tried, continuing to fight would not be in their best interest.

Since the '60's, or arguably since Korea, our strategy has been to convince the enemy that we were sorry to have to fight them, but since we were there, we might as well give it a shot. Tough to convince anyone that we don't want to fight, but hell, we'll give it a shot, so give up while you can. 

Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki disappeared not because there were enough "freedom fighters" there to make it worth our while, but rather because back during our "greatest generation" we knew that you won a war by making no longer worth the enemy's while to fight back. 

I didn't see Vietnam live, but watching Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," I was struck by the fact that the phrase "winning the hearts and minds" was featured in the movie, which means that the phrase was used at the time. Surely the communists in Vietnam realize what the Jihadists in Iraq realize today: it makes us sad in the US to kill people, so the more people that we are forced to kill, the less likely it is that we will see the mission to the end. 

Not to ring my own bell here, but I could have ended the war in Iraq in a matter of months, no nukes involved. Notify the locals that any city block that US soldiers receive enemy fire from will be bombed to the ground. Notify the people that the only way they can save their own lives is to report to the US soldiers whenever they notice Jihadists moving amognst their midsts. After a few neighborhoods got leveled, the people of Iraq would have noticed that it was in their best interests to cooperate. 

Oh, but that strategy would have made us feel bad; let's stick with the strategy that apologizes every time someone dies. Let's keep sticking our own men and women out in harms way, so that we don't offend anyone. Surely the more we convince the other side that we are unwilling to kill them, the more they will be convinced that it is their best interest to join our side.

Ya, right. The Iraqis are dealing with Jihadists that will kill anyone who opposes them, along with their families. They can either choose to join our side, which clearly isn't committed to do what it takes to win the war, or they can give in and support the fascists that will do anything to win. Tough choice. 

Whatever your view on the morality of the war in Iraq, surely you can agree that it is far more immoral to start a war that you know you cannot win. The US could win easily, but it feels too bad about it, so it chooses to lose. Now that's immoral.