But the central problem, of course, is that America has lost the battle for time in the Global War on Terror. It has implicitly conceded, both to its domestic and international constituencies, the unacceptability of prolonging the process for more a few more years. In short, it has taken Krepinevich’s scenario, if ever it were valid, off the table. To be fair, part of the blame must lie with the Bush administration itself, which implied that the process of defeating the enemy was shorter than it was. But if George Bush did not manage public expectations, his opponents certainly did. By repeatedly raising the specter of Vietnam, they implicitly engendered the counterassertion that all post-Vietnam American overseas commitments had to be casualty-free and of short duration.

This definitely points to a lack of strategy by the Bush camp, and a sign to pull out as soon as possible. I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen (as you had hoped, Callimachus), but it certainly seems to point to it.

In other words, we need to stay the course with even MORE troops, but the current plan doesn’t seem to have that in mind. Of course, I’m more than willing to keep our troops in a long, enduring struggle against the terrorists, but it doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

Am I wrong to suggest this?