Generations from now, historians will look back on our times and marvel that the most technologiocally equipped, well trained military force of the sole super power, perhaps ever in human history, found itself stymied.

There are ironies everywhere in Iraq. In spite of "Stay the course" rhetoric - no one - certainly not the the commander in chief - has yet clarified what that "course" might be. We haven't been clear about who our enemies are - we are even less clear who our allies might be. And who could imagine what "victory" might look like?

The Bush administration "spin" masters have come up with yet another surreal metaphor. Now they are saying that the war in Iraq (and the planned attack of Iran) is crucial and similar to the build up to World War II.

Other than sheer avoidance of Viet-Nam memories, this World War II association is preposterous on so many levels, it isn't even worth debating.
World War II was, ahem, a "world" war - with clear enemies, alliances and boundaries. There was an actual war "front" - In Iraq, any person, any place, any time, could be a threat - and should we expect that the USA should have a military presence in Iraq (as we still have in Germany) for the next sixty years?

One key principle of good decision-making is that the next level of decisions should be more clear and focused. The decision-making that led us into Iraq was poor at best. Instead of leading us to a clearer perspective, it has led us into deeper danger and confusion. Our choices now are far worse than a few years ago.

We have a depleted and largely demoralized military - and the stakes are higher.

If we face an enemy in Asia, as most military experts say we will, our adversary will be rested, equipped, trained and motivated.

I am conviced that historians of the future will marvel that the most sophisticated military force in the world was squandered at a crucial historical juncture- and for what?