12-13-2003, 06:15 AM
But beware the cookie cutter approach.
Japan had now many local nations supporting it post WW II? none, as I recall, given their less than stellar conduct as an occupying force.
Germany was occupied after being beaten into the ground by the Red Army and the Allies in the West for three years.
Iraq was over run, rather quickly, and there are numerous local regional factions who are relatively unscathed who can and will stir the pot for their own ends.
In short, METT-T is not identical, and not even that similar. And, unlike post WW II and pre Watergate and Viet Nam, the Press were more forgiving of sitting presidents insofar as foreign policy is concerned.
Between Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, that trust was breached by the Oval Office too many times over for the Fourth Estate to ever "trust" the man in the area to that extent again.
Kennedy: Diem, Bay of Pigs, et al By 1963, folks like JP Vann were coming home and saying "we can't unscrew this pooch" and no one wanted to hear ground truth: why? There was no relevant metric. (Thanks, McNamara)
Johnson: Practicing escalatio on the Viet Namese (Footnote: Tom Lehrer for that turn of phrase) Guns and Butter? That dog still don't hunt.
Nixon: Getting caught at Watergate and the "secret" bombing of Cambodia
Eventually, the slack given to FDR, Truman, and others simply was taken in: forever. Even as charsimatic a guy as WJ Clinton had the piss taken out of him by the media, and it was not all Blow_job_Gate.
Japan had now many local nations supporting it post WW II? none, as I recall, given their less than stellar conduct as an occupying force.
Germany was occupied after being beaten into the ground by the Red Army and the Allies in the West for three years.
Iraq was over run, rather quickly, and there are numerous local regional factions who are relatively unscathed who can and will stir the pot for their own ends.
In short, METT-T is not identical, and not even that similar. And, unlike post WW II and pre Watergate and Viet Nam, the Press were more forgiving of sitting presidents insofar as foreign policy is concerned.
Between Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, that trust was breached by the Oval Office too many times over for the Fourth Estate to ever "trust" the man in the area to that extent again.
Kennedy: Diem, Bay of Pigs, et al By 1963, folks like JP Vann were coming home and saying "we can't unscrew this pooch" and no one wanted to hear ground truth: why? There was no relevant metric. (Thanks, McNamara)
Johnson: Practicing escalatio on the Viet Namese (Footnote: Tom Lehrer for that turn of phrase) Guns and Butter? That dog still don't hunt.
Nixon: Getting caught at Watergate and the "secret" bombing of Cambodia
Eventually, the slack given to FDR, Truman, and others simply was taken in: forever. Even as charsimatic a guy as WJ Clinton had the piss taken out of him by the media, and it was not all Blow_job_Gate.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete