If Iran starts WWIII... well, suddenly all these "unwinnable" wars will be over, quick.
All we've had to do... in Vietnam, in Somalia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq; All we've had to do to win and win fast outright is adopt a WWII fighting stance. Sacrifice from both sides. Total war will be made acceptable again.
We are very, very good at total war. We are middling otherwise, because our enemies will always push farther than we will.
I sincerely hope you mean WWII mentality, as opposed to WWII strategy and tactics. Fighting a guerrila/insurgent war by convential means is a Really Bad Idea. WWII mentality, according to more than few military historians, didn't do us many favors in Vietnam. Unconventionial warfare assets did the best work. Conventional forces did have their uses against the NVA, not so well against the VC.
In my opinion as a former grunt, too many brass thought they could win a new war by using the same means as the last. Remembering history is very useful. Ignoring the current reality because of "Back in my day..." is a good way to get grunts dead.
My dictionary describes 'total war' as "an unqualified, all-out war conducted without scruple or limitation." Unless you're thinking of effectively depopulating your 'enemy' as a means of victory, total war is a bad idea. The real question would be, are you willing to commit genocide to win? To win what, exactly? Even implementing 'total war' is not an instant option for success. I recommend reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, specifically the section on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you'd like, I could check my bookshelf for other excellent books on that war.
Unfortunately, if we don't "win the hearts and minds" we're never going to succeed there.
As importantly, knowing your enemy, as well as your friends. If you cannot seperate the two, you cannot win. One problem is having folks understand the local culture. It isn't easy, but ignoring it is a very unwise choice.
2. To pretend "we went in because of lies about WMD" is nonsense, and a lie.
Yes, some of the urgency of action was based on fears that Saddam had continued a WMD program... fears he intentionally encouraged, by the way (prolly to keep Iran off his neck). But the recent "Bush lied, people died" nonsense is a gross distortion of recent history.
You are correct. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iraq-Iran War, and used the empty threat of them as a chip to keep Iran in check. I imagine it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The first Gulf War destroyed his conventional forces, and everyone knew it. He had no conventional forces that could possibly launched another war, nor defend an invasion. Without the threat of chemical warfares Iran could and probably would have launched another war at some point. With the threat of chemical warfare, he got invaded by the US.
Well... Seeing as how President Bush's claims turned out to be exaggerated, there are a couple possibilities. My person guess is he used what he could to get the results he wanted. Unfortunately, reality didn't quite match up. Most politicians have this problem, it's limited to the President. Saying "Bush lied" is simplistic, but his claims were later not backed up by reality. Iraq had no real WMD program and no real ties to Wahabbi terrorism. Those were the two original justifications for the invasion. Later, it shifted to bringing democracy.
While the WMD argument was the one that got all the press, it was hardly the only or even major reason for renewing hostilities in Iraq. If you will remember Saddam signed a peace treaty after Desert Storm. Among the many breaches of that treaty was the repeated firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone to keep him from butchering (more of) the Kurds in the north.
The northern no-fly zone was set by President George Bush in April 1991 to protect cargo aircraft dropping supplies to Kurdish refugees on the Turkish border and later Operation Provide Comfort. The justification given were the terms of UNSCR 688, not the peace treaty.
Originally, we only attacked sites in responce to hostile behavior in the No Fly zones. President Clinton changed this in late 1998 or early 1999 to include "missile sites, anti-aircraft sites, command and control sites, relay stations and some intelligence gathering sites." (Publically acknowledged February 23, 1999 by the DoD.)
Interestingly, if we wanted to protect the Kurds from being butchered, why did we allow the Turkish Air Force into the northern no-fly zone to engage the PKK? Or challenge the Turkish Army when they deployed circa 10k into Kurdistan around December 2000?
More importantly, kindly refer back to the "Axis of Evil" speech in full. The actions of the Bush administration were from the beginning an attempt to establish an ideological beachhead in the Middle East, in the belief that the people of the region seeing this example would continue agitating for a free society over one ruled by fundamentalist Islam.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
My counterinsurrgency instructor beat a phrase into my head. "If an oppressed people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, they do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it." It was his opinion based off a decade plus of US involvement in various nation building and regime changes. I think I agree with him. Helping people is one thing. Doing the job for them is another.
Bush's state of the union for all it's nonsense did summarize events there quite well. The new government was starting to work - elections, constitution, so forth and so on - while not perfect, things were generally improving.. until those gains made were largely wiped out in the last year by a combination of Sunni and Shiaa violence. What he wasn't as clear on was the extent to which external powers were aiding said movements. (Iran and Syria.. the very same players that the ISG recommended "negotiating with" in order to "provide stability" in Iraq.. an option patently absurd as they're the ones formenting and fuelling much of said chaos.). I believe the Bush adminstration was not more open about this aspect because they know the obvious implication is that in order to stop said violence, taking the war up to Iran is almost certainly necessary.
And thanks to the continued misrepresentations about Iraq, that would be so politically unpopular now as to be virtually impossible.
I got out of the Army not that long ago. Not "virtually impossible", completely impossible from a military POV. Not without significant changes in force structure (ie, more people) and logistics (more stuff). When I heard talking heads on the TV discussing the good idea of declaring war on Syria and/or Iran, I wondered what Army they thought would do the job. Because we certainly don't have enough grunts and stuff to do it.
I spent the last six months of my time in the Army gutting warehouses, bases, National Guard armories, etc for material to be sent to Iraq. We're depleting our material reserves much quicker than said material is being produced. Last I heard, we publically acknowledged being 40k short on tactical radios. We're as short or shorter on a lot of other key materials. The cost of this war is currently in the trillions. Folks don't seem to be counting the cost of replacement equipment, or refurb/maintaince of current equipment.
Iran is larger than Iraq, in terms of geography and population. Their military is in much better shape, and they have much more experience than Iraq did in preparing for an invasion. If you think they haven't been observing the US invasion of Iraq and taking notes, you're seriously mistaken.
We could have tanks in Tehran within 48 hours, 96 at the most. We couldn't hold it with what we have currently.
