There is a critical difference between Iraq or Afghanistan and Vietnam: South Vietnam was a sovereign state, not a conquered one. The kind of martial law applied in the former Axis states, "Total Occupation," if you like, would have been impractical in South Vietnam unless we wanted to turn the whole country into Vietcong (though the South Vietnam was adept at doing that unassisted,) and nominally illegal. With the manpower to put soldiers on literally every street corner AND justification to regard every resident as hostile until proven otherwise Iraq, Afghanistan and South Vietnam could be treated just like the conquered Axis powers.

Whether the insurgents that kind of intensive occupation discovered were native or Pakistani would be largely irrelevant, because the garrisons and checkpoints would be equally effective against both. Short of full scale war between the US and Pakistani military (something Pakistan desperately wants to avoid so they can play us against China to their own advantage as long as possible) it would make little difference. The most likely outcome would be Pakistan angrily demanding to know why the US had its national in military prisons, and the US just as angrily demanding to know why they were walking around Afghanistan with RPGs and IEDs.


At least until the revelations of German concentration camps (Japans remain largely ignored even now,) Axis populations felt no more culpability for war than Afghans do. Hitler and Goebbels spent over a decade convincing Germans military expansion was just, and that the only "war guilt" lay with German politicians who "betrayed" the nation in the Great War. Despite many pronouncements, Japan has STILL accepted little responsibility for causing WWII, only regret for doing awful things in a stressful time (similar to Anders Breiviks unapologetic apology/rationalization, and no more convincing.) Convincing defeated Axis populations responsibility took years of intense Allied efforts probably unnecessary in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose people are keenly aware of the brutality and militance of their erstwhile leaders.

In Afghanistan, the level of destruction need not advance much to render the populace dependent on US support. Daily life as restricted and regimented as it would be under Total Occupation would accomplish that with little additional effort. Regardless, post-war Japan was not reduced to the rubble the closing Allied pincer inflicted on Germany, yet complete and rehabilitative occupation still succeeded. Afghans are at least as conditioned to obey authority, merely religious rather than civil, and both Afghans and Iraqis are conditioned to obey martial authority out of fear if not respect.


We did not take hundreds of hostages, then execute them for attacks by others, in Germany or Japan, but both occupations and rehabilitations succeeded. We did, however, intensively indoctrinate the native populations with awareness and disgust for the previous regimes brutality, and with a firm grasp of democratic and human rights principles. One early sign our Iraq and Afghan occupations were doomed was that, rather than telling them they would regain civil control if/when we deemed them ready, and preparing them for that however long it took, we sought leaders to reassume native control almost from the day we invaded. We were never serious about "nation-building," only eliminating threats real and perceived, then establishing pro-Western governments (because that worked so well with Saddams CIA sponsored coup.) That is a better approach than annihilating all the native infrastructure but, if the damage such destruction would do our international reputation concerns you, bear in mind that no lesser devastation would be sufficient to prevent Iran building (or purchasing) nuclear weapons.


That is just it though: Invading a nation and toppling its government obligates us to replace it with one at least as good if not better. It is the pragmatic choice simply to prevent another vengeance-seeking conflict. On departure, we need to leave behind a government sincerely and sufficiently committed to peace, democracy and human rights, not one just telling us what we want to hear so we leave them unmolested in their nice new fiefdom. If we go in, we must do it right:

1) Establish rigid and pervasive control over populations where force and anti-Western sentiments are both the norm.

2) Aggressively indoctrinate the entire population with principles of peace, democracy and human rights.

3) Discontinue the first practice and begin reintroducing native civil control only when convinced the second objective has been largely accomplished.

We must school them in democracy long enough for the children learning it today to grow into the adults practicing it tomorrow. If we cannot or will not do that we cannot or will not truly improve the nation, and should not waste the men, money and material pretending to try. Further, I do not think we should attempt any nation-building except as part of a large international coalition, because any situation serious enough to justify intervention is not solely Americas responsibility, and coalitions insulate us from criticism by countries equally involved. Absent those requirements, and the will and manpower to finish the job, I agree we should restrict ourselves to saturation bombing of imminent threats to destroy the infrastructure and strategic facilities constituting that threat.