Tom --I think Pearl Harbor happened on 9/11/01 and it seems as if we responded by kicking ass and asking questions later. The questions have changed, though. In WWII president Roosevelt felt a lot of pressure to enter the war; in the case of president Bush, he felt pressure not only to retaliate against the Taliban state in Afganistan which supported the Al-Qaida terrorists, but he felt pressure to "finish the job" his father had started in Iraq.
I believe his father stategically chose not to "finish off" Sadam Hussein in light of the political realities current at the time. I'm not sure what changed between Bush I and Bush II, but I don't feel we had anything to fear from Sadam, and that, politically speaking, we could get much more of our interests served by "leveraging" him as opposed to "leveling" him.
But its OK, the multi-national oil corporations headquartered in our our country once more own the oil fields, so business has been served.
As far as Afganistan is concerned, it seems we have been used as tools to serve the stategic agendas of others. We've never really been in charge of either battlefield --Iraq or Afganistan-- we have been, and are being, manipulated by others who, like a ju-jitsu fighter turn our own energy against us.
The only way out of this morass is for our political leaders to ask and answer the question, "What does the United States of America need to happen in this situation?" As opposed to "What kind of spin can I put on this situation to gain my next election?"
Of course, asking that question assumes that one "knows oneself" (per Socrates), and the sad fact is that we don't know ourselves --as a country or political entity: a nation-- we are too wrapped up in ourselves-- each of us, including our politicians, to even conceive of the notion of "the common good." We keep doing things that our founding Fathers would truly find "Un-Amarican," that is, at odds with our founding principles.
Well that's my rant. I guess I'm channeling Kentucky Ken.