It's claimed that Iraqi commanders were circulating copies of the movie "Black Hawk Down" as a training film for their troops.

Idiots.

What was it that appealed to them more, the general carnage, or the high kill ratio?

They still don't get it. They think that we're not willing to take casualties, because their history lessons don't extend further back than 1980. They've apparently never heard of Iwo Jima, or D-Day, or Cold Harbor, or any other battle in which we felt the nation was on the line.

I got into a (friendly) argument with a friend over how much will Americans will have for a fight if we take too many casualties. As a former '60s radical, he believed that body bags would play a major role in how long we'd be willing to fight.

He was very surprised when I said that I honestly believed that body bags had very little to do with America's withdrawal from Vietnam, and that we could probably suffer significantly more casualties than Vietnam cost without flagging most Americans' will to fight. He was stunned, but I believe that.

Not that I think we will see those kinds of casualties. I just don't believe that history justifies the view that most Americans are that willing to give up a war once it's engaged.

What matters most to the American character is if they think we can win. If they believe we can win, they will put up with massive sacrifices in lives and taxes and inconvenience. If they believe the cause is not winnable, they'll back out very quickly.

It's going to take a lot to convince most Americans that this one is unwinnable. Until then, all setbacks and casualties will do is strengthen the shrillness of those who are already anti-war.

Dean Esmay,

While I agree that being able (or willing) to win is part of it, another is having some idea of what we are fighting for.

In Vietnam, we were relatively clear what we SAID we were fighting for (stopping Communism at the 17th parallel or so), but Tet "showed" that we weren't winning. It didn't help, of course, that Westmoreland and Co. had been saying for years that we were.

But Mog and Haiti and places like that were different. It was never very clear that we couldn't win, but what we were fighting for was utterly unclear. Imposing democracy on a buncha folks who didn't want us there, AFTER we'd fed them? Trying to stop people from killing each other who wanted to? What nat'l interest was crying out? What did we really think we might achieve?

I think the American people, at heart, understand the importance of oil, understand the importance of WMD, understand that there is such a thing as evil. And, as you note, it certainly doesn't hurt that the evil, WMD-seeking, oil-controlling buggers are defeat-able.

Just a thought...