http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/Resources/saratoga.html

That battle was not very important, despite what some historians (ones that live nearby?) say. It was a win, but if it had been lost, it would have not made a difference in the outcome of the war.

As far as Mug the thug goes, there is no chance of guerrillas succeeding today without outside support. None. The campaign in Iraq went on as long as it did only because of support for the Iraqi guerrillas from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. It is winding down only because Syria and Saudi Arabia have stopped sending money and fighters. Iran has cut way back and once they stop, it will be over.
Afghanistan is still ‘hot’ because Pakistan is supporting the guerrillas there. The Diplomats have done a good job of getting Syria and the KSA to stop mucking about in Iraq, the Iraqi government is working on Iran, with some success it appears. Now the Diplos need to get the message thru to Pakistan.

The main reason the US revolution succeeded was because France sent their fleet over to help out.
Yorktown was THE decisive battle of the revolutionary war. America loses at Yorktown and we are still a colony.
Criteria for a decisive battle is changing the outcome changes history. Saratoga DOES NOT meet that standard. America loses at Saratoga and we fight another battle somewhere else.

http://www.lbdb.com/decisivebattles.cfm

Only Sir Edward lists Saratoga. His reasoning is weak. First win is never enough. If it was, first loss would be also.

How about a JDAM strike at 3AM. Turn him, his bedroom, and his palace into a smoking crater.
Make it a matter of state policy to kill tyrants and despots. All we need is a President with some large Brass Cajones.
Bush talked the talk, but he didn’t walk the walk.
As they say in Texas; ‘All hat, no cattle.’
If President Bush had backed up some of his bellicose rants, his job approval rating would be in the 60’s instead of the 30’s.
Not sure which moroon was blowing in his ear, but the program of going soft to try and win over the left was a fools mission from the get go. The Left was never going to support President Bush no matter what he did. And his reaching out to the Left cost him his support on the right.
That plan sounds like something Scott M. would have come up with.

It is very hard to see why any particular government should take the lead. Rhodesia was created by individual entrepreneurship from South Africa, and the link to Britain was a post-hoc symbolic alliance for that project. Britain would be a great choice to lead if they wanted but they have thrown aid that way for decades and seen it go down the toilet. They have no real reason to want it.

I think the more time one spends in Africa the less one believes in easy redemptive political solutions. The paternalism of well-intentioned Western ideas is nice when directly applied, but doesn’t work by shaming aggressive killers into being nice. It needs bayonets and bullets to make a rule of law where the strong pillage the weak.

We escaped to South Africa, where we did extensive travel, and saw the same mentality. Even then South Africans were saying “We’re just 10 years behind them.” South Africa is now where Zimbabwe was in 2000. At least they don’t have Nukes anymore (I hope).

There is a ring of truth to the “white guilt” theory. The African culture is tribal. The Headman gets everything and doles it out to his favorites, starving his enemies. Democracy is an anathema to tribal cultures: witness the Middle East. This culture dominates Africa: Rwanda, Uganda, Cote de Ivore, Sudan, etc. Civilization can’t change it except through force. Force the West is unwilling to exert.

Write it off.