2- One of the problems in metaphor, is that sometimes they don't mix well "The difference here is that a clear cut enemy was declared and fought along conventional lines." There were many differences, but fundamental to the British question was that Nazi Germany could defeat Britain and Britain could defend itself. My reference to Ghandi was that he, among other things, realized that he could not fight the British or any organized government but he still wanted to win---so he developed a strategy to accomplish his goals.
I would answer your questions like this, second one first, he wnats us out of his business and off of his land. #1--why are we always on the defensive? The answer to that is that we insist on seeing this as an armed conflict instead of an idealogical conflict, and we insist on dealing with extreme fringe elements. If you design your strategy around the potential actions of the extreme fringe, you necessarily will misapprorpiate assets. Simply put, regardless of what the Mullahs want to do, they can't defeat America....at least not today or in the near future. Imagine any nightmare scenario that you want, within some reasonable parameters, and it doesn't come close to defeating AMerica. Look at NO, if that had been a terrorist attack that breached the levies, would AMerica be in no great danger of being defeated. You HAVE to consider relative capabilities. We went to war after 9-11 because we wanted to. We went to war after Pearl Harbor because we had to. Al Qaeda could never affect the viability of the nation (until they complete the manipulation---but I don't believe they are that smart). Japan in 1941, absolutely could. In my manuscript I talk about "real" impact--as in "real" interest rate versus "notional". Terrorism has a very small real impact, far below the impact of other things we happily perpetuate or at least allow, yet we are currently applying somewhere around 10% of our GDP toward it due to its notional impact.
Always think about how the enemy can win--not just how he will fight. That was, I believe, a critical flaw in the planning of Iraqi Freedom. Before the start of the conflict the question being asked was how will the Iraqis fight? The answer was they'll pollute the gulf, send armor , use chemicals past the Red Line, dig in in Baghdad etc. Now, ask the question how are are the Iraqis going to win? I was on the line when our armour rolled up----there was noway anyone who wanted to win was going to fight that---the enemies solution set becomes entirely different
Alright, I think I am wondering---not a lot of sleep last night---