Were the US military really dominant in Iraq? Or were they not really tested?

If this story is true, then of course the Iraqi war was not a true test of the new military technologies. The point the old soldiers in the US military made was that a desperate enemy is capable of finding ways around the technological advantages. If the best of the Iraqi forces were held back, then the new weapons and tactics were not fully tested at all.

So maybe this particular story - of unassailable US military power - is not true. Maybe if the US was to come up against a genuinely committed enemy - like, for instance, the North Koreans or Iranians - they might get a nasty surprise.

A quick, easy victory was crucial to the way Bush, Blair and Howard deflected opposition to the war on Iraq. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the war - and with the general impression of US invincibility - the US has already exploited its apparent dominance by threatening long-term irritants Syria and Iran. And the US public seems quite happy about this new aggression, as long as the costs seem so low.

However - and leaving aside the point that the war in Iraq, like that in Afghanistan, is hardly over in any meaningful sense - a few setbacks in the next "preventative" operation, a few too many body bags, and that aggression will start to look like something else.

Perhaps another story will emerge - that technology can never remove the danger of war, and that sooner or later the public will stop believing in grand plans for unchallenged geopolitical power. Actually, this sounds like the story that eventually became so popular about Vietnam, doesn't it.