Teribus, my comment on the outcome of Afghanistan had no relation to the number of troops committed, whatever your supposition. I am referring to the hearts and minds aspect of the campaign. The Taleban would have found is considerably more difficult to garner support with a population that actually welcomed the coalition. Think Malaya rather than Vietnam; Templeton rather than Westmoreland.
I suggest you ask your son what the people really think. When asked, "have you seen any Taleban?" do they immediately dob them in, or do they smile evasively and say, "No Taleban here," when everyone knows full well that there are.
I introduced PIRA attacks in Ulster as an analogy because you seemed to be labouring under the delusion that attacks by Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan somehow "don't count" as terrorism; as though only PIRA attacks on the UK mainland counted. Note the "as though".
And, yes, every military has hypothetical plans for any eventuality. We even have war plans against the French on a shelf somewhere in Shrivenham (and no bad thing, some would argue).
But the plans being put forward for Iraq were rather more than that, I think you'll find. If we are talking table-top wargames, why did the very first meeting of the National Security Council following Bush's inauguration have the invasion of Iraq on its agenda? Are you suggesting that, in the UK, COBRA or JIC deliberates the invasion of France as a matter of priority?
You can bluster and spout bollocks until the cows come home, but I think posterity will judge the subject of this overlong thread to be accurate.
And hindsight is, indeed, a wonderful thing. I remember one armchair general saying that it was highly unlikely that there would be a war because Bush would never launch an attack without the full and official sanction of the UN, and anyway, if the Americans did decide to invade it would have to be an entirely amphibious assault and that would never work, so would everyone please calm down.
Ring any bells?
Similarly, if you can be arsed to fossick back through old posts, you'll find that I supported the Afghan operation and thought it justified (albeit with reservations as the the long-term outcome), but at no point did I see the Iraq operation as justified.
For one view from way back when, see this post from February 2003. Hindsight or foresight?