The Economist has been going down hill for a while. I don't quite get what he was going for with this article.

[/quote]Even if America cannot imagine fighting another Iraq or Afghanistan, extremists round the world have seen mighty America's vulnerability to the rocket-propelled grenade, the AK-47 and the suicide-bomber. [/quote]

1. We had already shown this in Lebanon and Somalia.
2. What has really changed is not that our enemies have shown that we are vulnerable to their attacks, but that our public cannot withstand casualties and that they can.
3. What has changed EVERYTHING is technology. Whether it is cell phones or the internet, insurgents see immediate results to their actions and are not only able to use it for propaganda, but are capable of seeing its effect on their enemy (specifically the American civilians.) Unfortunately, knocking out satellite phone, cellular phone and internet service in Iraq doesn't seem to be an option. Everything is immediate today.

Also, the British had a much easier time with the geography of Malaya. They didn’t' have to deal with Laos and Cambodia. On top of this, the SAS was in its formative years and for this reason was most capable of adapting to the situation in every way. He also ignores the fight between the military and politicians. Politicians change often in Western governments and force the military to constantly appease their desires. This impact can best be seen in Northern Ireland. All of this effects small wars.

Note: I know I seem to always be critical in my posts, but that is only because I am a critic. LOL. . I just don't like mid-length articles. Their purpose is unclear. They are not a summary of the issues, they fail to explore issues in their entirety and most often fail to site anything to help the reader fill in the gaps. This unfortunately has become the trend/standard.

Adam

P.S. Sorry about that rant.