No, I see your point...

I don't have an answer other than to say that, as a nation, I don't feel there is anything we can't do... including winning a "war" against radical Islamic terror... or any other type of terror.

But as long as we are looking more closely at the question, let me ask another:

When was the last time we faced an enemy like the one we face now?

You ask if we can achieve a "WWII-like victory" today, given our national propensity for humanitarian concerns and politically correct foreign policy... and I don't know the answer to that question. However, I can tell you that we have an excellent track record for winning wars that are FOUGHT in the "grande armee" style of warfare... but our track record for fighting an insurgent-style guerrilla war (especially when we fight against an insurgent-style guerrilla enemy) is less than spectacular. Does the absense of one preclude to possibility of gaining the other? In other words, can we win "WWII-style" while fighting "guerrilla-style" enemies?

I'm not sure the answer here is as easy as it seems.

We won damn near all the battles of Vietnam... but lost the war. We fought back from nearly utter defeat against unbelievable numbers all the way to the Chinese border in Korea... but only gained the pre-war status quo as our prize. Our "win" in Kuwait was nearly text-book perfect in its execution and planning... but only provided another 12 years of hostilities and a further 7 years of bloody, painful conflict to finish the job and provide the Iraqis with the means to lead themselves. We have now been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviets had been... and while we have gained much, there is still no reasonable end in sight according to our most trusted military leaders.

WWII was a total victory for all the Allies, but it was a costly win... one we are still dealing with today. The defeat of Germany and Japan by the US / Western Allies AND the USSR divided the world between the West and the Communists... and many of those divisions are still smarting in our collective paws to this day. Much of the modern Middle East was "drawn" in the post-war years as the British Empire contracted into the Commonwealth of Nations, and much of the Arab world was forced to choose between the US-side and the USSR-side (with most Arab states siding with the Soviets, by the way). The two Koreas are a direct result of the early "Cold War" developing between Stalin and the West. The alienation of Cuba from the rest of the Americas is also a symptom of a broader disease... mainly "communism" and the means by which the West fought it off. Don't forget about the 60-year struggle between "Red China" and the Republic of China... another hand-me-down from the WWII years.

Is it unreasonable to expect future victories to come with the same (or greater) baggage for our children and grandchildren to have to deal with?

All this goes without saying that there is no clear concensus (amongst ourselves OR other experts) on how best to WIN the current fight at all, let alone in the "total victory" manner in which WWII was finished. I just talked to Jambo, and he feels that the ONLY chance we have of victory is by fighting the states that sponsor and support the terrorists, rather than fighting the terrorists themselves (a difficult venture when you don't know where they are at any given time until the strike).

Is this the only option? Does history give us no other exampes of what we face now?