I'm pretty sure if the US government really took off the gloves she could probably gain a victory(maybe). But to understand the problems you have to
look at it from many military perspectives. I'm not a military expert but this is what I see.
1. Guerilla war is centuries old, you could look up ancient and middle age wars and probably find effective guerilla warfare. It's always been
difficult and at times impossible to fight.
2. Picking on the US does no good, this government is not the only government with superior tech that has lost to major inferior forces. Russia lost
in Afghanistan. Israel lost in Lebanon, today Lebanon is a hostile territory to the north. They occupied but they lost. I even heard(and someone
can confirm this) that the allies had a hard time intially occuppying Germany after WW2. Of course this is not to say its impossible to win, but you
can just as easily lose these kinds of wars.
3. People get addicted to powerful tech, but IMO warfare always has a level of difficulty if the people your fighting put up serious resistence.
It's always easier if the oneside is willing to give in when defeated. If you study war more closely you'll see this. It is true that the more
powerful do win most of the time, but it can be after serious difficulty. Example is the British and the Zulus.
4. Iraq has a history of serious resistence to foreign occupation. It's not impossible to permanently occupy and take over that country, but its
hard. As a matter of fact according to Iraqis there is no major evidence of sectarian conflict throughout its history and the people there have
usually been united against foreign occupiers so the current sectarian conflict is unique.
We can see this throughout the history, for instance the British occupation after WW I had to deal with serious resistence. I've read there was one
famous battle where 8,000 Iraqis and 2,000 British troops were killed, the British decided to drop Sarin Gas on the country. The Mongolians caught
hell in that country despite delivering severe military blows, they couldn't quell the resistence, and I believe they occupied it for three years
before leaving. The US has so far been there for three years.
The Iranians couldn't conquer Iraq and Iraqi's couldn't Conquer Iran. The Ottomans dealt with resistence though they successfully occupied the
country. I don't think the resistence to them was as serious. The modern country has borders drawn by Britain and has at many times had to be held
down with an iron fist, especially because of the Kurds. What did you think the US would get when they got there. The problem is we all were
intially into the hype.
Plus the occupation is even more difficult when you have other global military responsiblities. The US is a global military power, it can't just use
all of its force in one country. Even the Mongolians had been spread out quite far by the time they occupied Iraq.
5. The US invaded 2 Muslim countries with a history of serious resistence to foreign occupation, Iraq and Afghanistan. I kind of makes me the think
the US is caught between Iraq and a hard place.
6. US could be more destructive hoping for a victory that way, but then the way the US invaded makes such actions difficult politically. Our
government had to sell this war to the world, but specifically the Muslim world and more improtantly the middle eastern countries. The way we
attacked, was based on help from the countries in the area. We didn't just invade the middle east until we hit Iraq, or conduct a war directly on
Iraq from the sea. This means eyes are watching, and governments are frantic and worry about their stability. Destroying Iraq could exasperate that
instabilty causing wider regional problems. I presume someone will disagree with this.
7. Finally theres evidence of poor planning, with the we thought the chips were going to fall into place mentality.