Innocence Riots

Exactly: the invasions were for domestic political consumption.And, in particular, occupations with the long-term implications of extensive base construction were colossally stupid.Everyone in the Middle East understands vengeance, and it can even engender respect, but occupation trumps all with the hate, rage and defiance it provokes.Osama bin Laden must have watched his script unfold with considerable satisfaction. The invasion of Iraq was a bonus he couldn't possibly have expected--he planned too carefully to count on his enemies being so foolish.U.S. generals are still trying to figure out how to combat guerrilla/asymmetrical warfare with conventional force structures and tactics, rather than recognizing the error.In 'Nam, we ended up with "pacified" zones that were actually internal refugee camps, and free-fire zones nearly everywhere else.Soon, American planes and helicopters were killing anything that moved in the free-fire zones--man, woman, child, animal; friend, foe, unknown--further strengthening the VC's support among the South Vietnamese. Pursue tactics like these, and pretty soon you're evacuating embassy staff from the roof with helicopters, wondering what the hell happened.Waging conventional war on resistance fighters in an occupied country inevitably leads to "collateral damage". In the early 70s, every peasant working a paddy looked like Charlie from a helicopter, and we hosed them with Ma Deuce like kids at a carnival; now, every group moving under the Predators' cameras looks like Al Qaeda, and we blow them up like FPS avatars.After 40 years, we make the same mistakes. Only the game analogies have changed. I don't oppose the use of drones, given adequate intelligence, but I'm appalled at how loose the rules of engagement must be.But the first, worst mistake was to engage in conventional military invasions and occupations.