[QUOTE=Warfish;4259132]I certainly agree that both the impetus for War (in Iraq) and the Goals and Victory Conditions were poorly defined and managed at the start. I'd also say, for various debatable reasons, that the managemnt of the War itself was poor-to-questionable for a good portion of the Iraq conflict.
With that said, Wars are often judged by outcomes. And as we sit today, it remains possible (not giving odds) that the outcome of the Iraq War could still be quite good. An ongoing Democracy in Iraq, possible Democracies in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere. Of course, all of these newborn Democracies could turn out to be future enemies, Iraq, Libya and beyond, and that too would be how the Wars will be judged.
I would disagree that either conflict was, in pure millitary terms, unwinable however. On the battlefield, we won both hands down, by a wide margin. It's in other areas, mainly political, that we faced defeat (in Vietnam) and constant setbacks and problems (in Iraq).
For purposes of this I've left out Afgahnistan, as it's really a very different War, with different casus belli, and different obstacles to overcome. While the two conflicts will always be tied together at the proverbial hip, here a direct one-to-one compariosn of Iraq and Vietnam, widely considered our two biggest failings, seemed interesting ground to plow.
EDIT: As a courtesy, since I see you replied FF, you and cr are on my ignore list. I won't be reading or responding to anything you post from here on out.[/QUOTE]
I hate to sound like a project management 101 course but it all comes down to how you define success. As you say in your post, " both the impetus for War (in Iraq) and the Goals and Victory Conditions were poorly defined and managed at the start.". Even today I think that you could take 3 people in America, say you, me and Bit and get 3 totally different deffinitions of what would constitue success in Iraq.