[Moneyguy1]

There are different types of territorial conquest. Of course. one is to destroy the military/government of a country. annex it and take over completely. Another is to conquer it either militarily or politically, mold it into a clone, and leave, creating a dependent state. Both are a means of occupation; one is by force and one is by influence.

Our country has a fairly good record of "letting go" after conquest with a few exceptions like Cuba and the Phillipenes. We got out of Europe and Japan rather quickly, limited only by the damage that had to be repaired and in the process created two democratic governments. It took years to do this. That is the second method of conquest. At least we helped create two new countries that are not for the forseeable future a threat to others.

There is a difference between this and the current situation. Japan and Germany KNEW they were defeated. Cities turned into rubble. Hundreds of thousands dead, economies ruined. Modern pinpoint warfare permits the defeat of a military while leaving the infrastructure virtually intact. Thus, the people do not feel beaten. The idea that the culture difference between the West and the Middle East is the primary problem does not hold water, because the gulf between the Japanese culture and the West was as severe, with perhaps the fact that both liked baseball. It is, plain and simple, that there are those in Iraq and Afganistan that do not see a defeat, only a temporary setback.

Some new thinking has to be done to resolve the problem of 20th century vs 21st century warfare. Smart bombs ain't the answer....