"simple" SOF unit doesn't just magically appear at the target zone, cap the bad guys, and then beam out ala Star Trek.

True enough. I'm concerned here with the footprint on the ground, though, not the logistical tail. A small SOF raid may have hundreds of people behind it but only a handful of them are actually in country breaking things. That's a lot easier to keep quiet.

The result is that what could be accomplished by a single Special Forces A Team or a SEAL Task Unit winds up bloating into a giant operation involving carrier battle groups, fighter squadrons, and 15 general officers.

Unfortunately, James, a "simple" SOF unit doesn't just magically appear at the target zone, cap the bad guys, and then beam out ala Star Trek. They typically go by helo or paradrop, which needs the support of all sorts of AF or Army aviation assets; not to mention air refueling & airborne intel assets. Even if they walk to the target, they still have to get to the country (or an amenable neighbor) somehow. Not to mention that the rescue units in case something bad happens (above & beyond the planned extraction method) can put even the simplest op into the 'hundreds of people' category.

How would YOU defend America from another 9/11?
OR, are you one of the many left-wing traitorous scum who throw a party each 9/11 because we "deserved it?"

At some point, either the public is going to have to insist that not happen or the military is going to have to adapt to that reality.

Absolutely. I feel comfortable in saying I've made my choice and I'm doing my bit! ;)

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

The American people will not support a war based upon lies.

Powell lied in order to convince the world that Bush had legitimate reason to launch his war on Iraq.

Powell lied by remaining silent as torture and other war crimes where perpetuated and the Geneva Convention was discarded as 'quaint' by his pals in the Republica party.

Screw Powell. His so called 'doctrine' was nothing but a bunch of meaningless words when it came down to a real world test. His 'doctrine' meant nothing to the man who claimed it as his own.

And, yes, the Powell Doctrine was just a turning of the wheel on Caspar Weinberger's Doctrine.

1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

It's classic post-Vietnam Realism and I agree with it wholeheartedly in principle. The 5th principle is especially difficult to achieve in the contex of a peacekeeping-type mission, in that high public support tends to evaporate over time.

The thing is, though, presidents from both parties routinely see the use of force as being in the U.S. national interest despite the situation at hand often not being amenable to military solution. At some point, either the public is going to have to insist that not happen or the military is going to have to adapt to that reality.

This is a case where I have a fair amount of sympathy for Rumsfeld.

On the larger issue, I think the Powell Doctrine is Clauswitzian in the best sense - it baked in the larger politics (metapolitics if you prefer) ahead of time. Powell and his brain trust recognize what the neoconservatives tacitly or explicitly deny: that war is extraordinary. Most countries are not at war most of the time. Wars that don't meet the Powell test are better not fought, for political reasons that transcend the immediate politics of the dispute in question. I think Powell was right about that and Iraq is "proving the rule" in the real, original sense of what exceptions do.