Video games and the movies often make war about two sides killing each other, and body counts are often touted as evidence of progress. The reality of war, though, is that it generally continues until one side lacks either the means or the will to continue. The irony of the Bush Administration's war is that it's done quite a lot that ensured that we would run short on the means to fight the war, And quite a lot which ensures that our enemy does not want for them.

The right wing in America today makes quite a big deal about will, about the head-games. While retaining confidence is an important matter in keeping a war going, it's something much easier to do when people see a working policy in place, with goals that are met, and an enemy rendered less able to fight, not more. You cannot expect people not to weigh the merits of continuing or cutting short a war, especially in a Democracy where this is supposedly their prerogative.

Supplies, weaponry, and communications are part and parcel of successful warfare. So is good management. Though the popular vision of winning a war is killing everybody and letting God sort things out, the truth is, you can lose a war even without losing too many lives.

War, as Von Clausewitz famously said, is policy carried out by other means. When he talked about forces, he often talked about them in terms of their ability to carry out their objective. Morale and will are but one part of a larger equation, and often dependent on the shape that other components are in.

Equipment is important, We're running short. So is knowing how to handle the equipment, and knowing this outside of a situation where having a learning curve can be a deadly handicap. If you want a confident soldier, you deploy him or her trained and well equipped.

The failure to deny that equipment to the enemy, to deny them the opportunity to train and gain confidence is also an issue, which is why it's a real sorry situation when we end up supplying our enemy with weapons, When a campaign meant to stop the spread of destructive weapons Lacks the means to secure dangerous military explosives, and when we can't account for the vast majority of wea