Stuck in a Rut: Forced Occupation for Gain

The Bush Administration and their Neocon pals just don’t "get it". They didn’t in 2001, and they don’t now.

While post war occupation by us and other countries in the past has been relatively successful, a FORCED occupation is seldom a winning action.

The Romans, who spread their culture and their armies to the far corners of the then known world, were eventually bounced out by angry "little guys" who were far less effectively armed but were much more dedicated in their fighting.

The French, hot after Indo-Chinese rubber and in a desperate last effort to expand empire...failed in their efforts, defeated by determined and clever masses of Indo-Chinese who didn’t want occupation (for some crazy reason!)

Again, beginning in 1952, the French couldn’t make it work in Algeria. Simple men and women with an iron will and a handfull of dynamite eventually drove the French army...at one time 500,000 strong!...O.U.T.

Then the Americans gave Viet Nam (one time Indo-China) a try. They had rich fields of natural gas and of course rubber (which Lyndon Johnson wanted), but as we all know now...we had no chance of defeating an "enemy" dead set on driving us out.

Now, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re at it again. We’re trying..through deception and sheer technilogical might..to defeat a varied group of what we choose to call "insurgents", whose makeup consists of angry citizens, teens, al Qaeda, foreign fighters and jihadists...all of whom share a common cause..they want their country for themselves. They want to solve their problems in their own manner...right or wrong.

For some crazy reason the mightiest military on earth, armed with every super weapon known to man, trained to a "T", and covered with armor, cannot defeat a loosely organized bunch of ragtag non-uniformed or armored group of dedicated fighters!

Now where have I heard such a story before?