The French never imagined that the Viet Minh could carry 105mm Pack Howitzers thru the jungle and over the mountains. These howitzers helped the VM carry on the siege of DBP, ultimately taking the garrison out.

The Iranians have no pack howitzer supprise in store for the US unless they are Exocet missles

intended for the fleet off Iraq.

The short answer to your two suggested major engagements is NO.

If you want to count bodies, read some military history. You can start with the Romans - losing 100,000 in a day was just stuff that happened - and move to the Russians on the German eastern front. Yes, those 10,000 marines were ours and yes, they fought and won against a foe for whom surrender was not thinkable. That is how we create myths of our superiority. Americans also endured huge sacrifices in the great European battles os WWII. But if you look at comparative sacrifice it seems our greatest moments are when we come in and mop up the mess, after the protagonists have worn themselves out, not as in Korea and Vietnam when we ourselves are the major protagonist.

And no, I do not think that Desert Storm was a major engagement. In a way that is the problem. If you want to know what a major engagement is, start a war with someone who can fight back. Pick on someone your own size. Iraq's population is what - 25 million - and no WMD's. Iran's is 70 odd million, and we don't know yet about their capabilities.

But it's a fairly good bet that they have some of those missing Russian nukes and don't have to produce their own.

Karl Huber

I think the neocons in the Bush administration can convince Bush to invade Iran, likely by arguing that an invasion of Iran would help secure victory in Iraq, and give us an unlimited supply of oil. The only problem is that an invasion of Iran would be an unmitigated disaster. Even if we were to only launch an air war against Iran, they could sink a few ships in the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a large portion of the world's oil supply. Bush is acting increasingly like a cornered rat, so anything is possible. Our only hope is that the military will convince Bush that an invasion of Iran is impossible.

>>We haven't won a major engagement since WWII, and even there some would argue that we let the Russians and the British carry the greatest burden.<<

1) You mean like 10,000 dead U.S. Marines in just one day at Iwo Jima?

2) Operation Desert Storm didn't count as a major engagement?

1. The US can do a lot of damage, but we've shown the world, again, that we cannot win militarily. We haven't won a major engagement since WWII, and even there some would argue that we let the Russians and the British carry the greatest burden. What we did do well was use our industrial might to supply weapons and materiel. Today that reserve manufacturing and engineering capacity has moved to China.

2. We cannot win because we use force inappropriately. We've bought our own myth of being the biggest and strongest. We just haven't been the most intelligent.

3. Actually, no one wins in war. If it comes to Iran rolling our forces into the sea, history teaches them not to repeat Hitler's mistake of letting the British evacuate at Dunkirk.

4. Iran already humiliates the US publicly. It's not even a first rate power. We injure ourselves. Every time we make a threat that we cannot enforce, we set ourselves up for further humiliation. Except at home, where news is filtered, the world sees us as clowns - dangerous clowns, but clowns none the less. Iran will not let the US find a face saving exit from Iraq.

5. Iran has won with superior strategy, not force of arms. To avoid a checkmate, our only course is to withdraw, reassess, and see what non-military tools we have left. With the imminent demise of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and with it the demise of America's image as the world's business model, these tools now may be ineffective as well.

6. While it is tempting to see this as a Republican debacle, the Democrats supported the use of military force. The debacle is bipartisan. It results from 55 years of arrogance, of relying on and trusting government coercion to solve problems at home and abroad.

I wish there were an easy way out. I see none. No American politician is able to admit that we have lost. Citizens are no longer willing to be self-reliant and mind their own business. The debacle will play out to its end, forcing America's hand.

Karl Huber

Unfortunately, this writer hits the nail on the head. Wake up. Look at the way the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus is shunning Cynthia McKinney. I have never seen more evidence that the entire workings of the federal governnment have bought into the need to attack and control the mid-east, and they are complicit in the killing of their own citizens. As though the oil truly won't run out, as long as it is only going to Amerika.

It is likely that this administration will consult the Saudi's before any attack on Iran (recall that the Saudi ambassador was shown the Iraq invasion plans even before Colin Powell). The Saudi's are painfully aware of their proximity and vulnerability to Iran and are afraid of attacks on their oil infrastructure and ultimately the Royal family's grip on power. So the good news is that the Saudi's will likely "veto" a U.S. attack on Iran. The Saudi's know they have us by the balls and know when and by how much to squeeze. The Iranian's know this and it is one of the reasons they feel emboldened to taunt the U.S.

The bad news is that with this administration's tendency to miscalculate and for consistent incompetence, an attack is possible. Unfortunately the probability of such an attack increases as the failures and scandals around the administraion become more apparent to the American population, leading to a "wag the dog" scenario.

The discussion regarding the brief political and military analysis that Joe Conason set forth is his article has, by my reading, been conducted with out anyone using the three most important words relating to this entire topic. "Straits of Hormuz" The shallow, 14 mile wide channel at the outlet of the Persian Gulf, leading to the Arabian Sea. The strategic water way that is dominated by a couple hundred miles of Iranian coast line, through which the vast majority of all Persian Gulf oil transits in a perpetual convoy of super tankers. War with Iran means the Iranians do everything in thier power to shut down the oil shipments out of the Gulf. They have the submarines and mine laying capacity to do so. The only question is whether or not the straits could be reopened and secured before our oil dependant economy collapses. The smart money would probably bet on global economic disaster, plain and simple. The ground forces necessary to effectively occupy the Iranian territory over looking the Straits are not available. The rest of the analysis regarding Iranian prompted attacks within Iraqi territory are generally valid. U.S. and British forces do not have the capacity to respond effectively, given the willingness of the various Iraqi militias to take unthinkable casualties.

Even this military analysis doesn't really establish that attacking Iran is unthinkable, given the psycohosis demonstrated over the last three years. After all, George Bush did take the U.S. to war in the most strategically vital location on earth, while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate (for what reason?) that, somehow the bloody lessons learned in the last half century regarding occupations, insurgencies and ethnic warfare, would be negated by some technological advance! What did we have to gain with this demonstration that over shadowed the strategic interests that we put at risk?

It is obvious to me that reason no longer prevails in this administrations approach to our national security. Anything is possible.