The left's original boogeyman - nukes.

First ...

"Too many people have forgotten the lessons of WWII... that there is no guaranty of victory when the planning goes no further than "low risk-high return" in regards to military costs in lives and material."

I kept preparing to pounce on your post, fingers poised, as you set about ripping Cheney/Rummy, but in the end I can not disagree with the driving point you make - without a commitment to "total war", and accepting the up front cost that entails, then you have condemned the war to last longer, and cost more in the long run. From a formal declaration, to boots on the ground commitments post Saddam/Taliban, to the domestic war drive (bonds to the White House PR needed) we have seen that this "we will go to war, you just get back to the mall" strategy has been inefficient. I wouldn't call it a failure because the surge has drastically improved Iraq but "half war", in terms of the commitment from the civilian leaders, has been shown to not work from Vietnam to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Let me just add though - I do not believe Bush/Cheney/Rummy get a Johnson/McNamara treatment from history. Mainly because we will NOT (I would hazard to predict anyway) be leaving these 2 theaters on a helicopter over the embassy allowing the enemy to take all positions and land. Even with the near fatal flaw of "half war" imposed after the regimes were deposed the bottom line is "Bush's War" will get its' victory and that alone will separate him form any Vietnam comparisons.

Now let me comment on something that caught my eye ... I have zero beef with your nuclear war head via Time Magazine post. The authors have the typical sophomoric view of nuclear weaponry - all bad, all the time, no matter what. And I find it hilarious that those on the left now employ the phrase, "no longer needed in a post Soviet era", when in truth they opposed MAD and our stockpiles DURING the Soviet Era. At any rate, the following was what caused an arch in my right eyebrow:

The article seems to indirectly scoff at the notion that nuclear deterrents are needed in a post-Soviet world, but I am of the opinion that the strategy of MAD (mutually assured destruction) in the event of a pre-emptive strike by the Soviets was enough to keep them in check until such time as the communist system itself failed utterly from within.

Can you tell me, why is it that those who grew up as Democrats in the 80's are to this day so hesitant to give credit to Regan and Thatcher, not to mention John Paul II (although I scarcely believe you would have trouble with crediting that name)?

I mean yes, communism of any brand is ultimately doomed to fail. But I think its a little intellectually dishonest to describe the fall of the Soviet empire as one that "failed utterly from within", adding nothing else. We didn't merely "keep them in check", we actively pushed that crumbling. Let us put it this way. Without the decades of opposition form the West, most prominently the US, how much longer would the empire have existed? I dare say a might longer. And with Reagan in specific the military build up was one the Soviets tried but could not match, costing them the few dollars that their beloved 5 year plans left behind. From Kennedy to Reagan we (with exceptions like Carter & Ford) maintained proxy wars, evil empire status, and strategic opposition on every conceivable level in order to "tip Humpty Dumpty" over the wall - he didn't merely fall on his own accord. Look I don't need to give you, of all people, a history of the Cold War, and perhaps you agree with every word I wrote, and maybe you were simply trying to articulate past that part of the post in order to arrive at your main point - but I find it so oddly curious that the initial, knee jerk reaction to the fall of the Soviets, from the perspective of "1980's Democrats" seems to always be "it crumbled from within", and then ending their sentence on the matter at that. Perhaps a residue of partisan dust with some shelf life still left in it gets shaken into the air whenever you step outside to beat the rug of Cold War era policies ... ay there buddy? Hehe.