It does not need much wisdom and in-depth research to prove that the US would lose on the last mile not only in Iraq but on every inch that it wants to dominate outside Iraq.
The New York Times has already invested a lot of wisdom and completed indepth research and analysis in this regard at a great cost.
The person who is paid huge sums and provided full support to travel around the world and move freely from US military bases in completely occupied lands to the Houses of power in the semi-occupied lands, and lead policy deliberations in Washington concludes:
“The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.” (New York Times, November 28, 2004) 
It is a wonderful job on the part of New York Times’ chief foreign affairs analyst because we have been provided with five basic elements –” coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate –”for the US to successfully complete its occupation. Lacking these elements, in his view would be a sure recipe for disaster.
The fun part of the story is that being an embedded journalist or a reporter makes one partially blind. He can dig out such fine elements, but completely fails to see their total absence to conclude that the US is already in the way to face total disaster. It would soon be belly up in all the places where it is out to impose its way of life on others.
Let us analyse these elements to see if the US has any chance to win a war that it has been waging for the last 14 years with weapons of mass deception as well as mass destruction of unprecedented nature and scale in human history.
The question is: coordinate with whom? Killers, dictators, human rights abusers, thugs and opportunist monsters like Musharraf, Karazai, Allavi, Mubarak and Karimov? Or with a partner liar in chief, Tony Blair?
These are all that the US can coordinate with. And these are all who see their demise in the demise of the United States. The rest of the world is as much against the US motives as it has never been in the US history of foreign interventions.
If this is the coordination that the New York Times would like to succeed, it better prepare for the much awaited demise of the imperial Washington, because even its closest ally Turkey today called the US tactics worse than Hitler. Those who have any doubts must see Reuters reporting on Nov 26: "Turk lawmaker says US in Iraq worse than Hitler."
Gareth Jones of Reuters further writes: "The head of Turkey’s parliamentary human rights group has accused Washington of genocide in Iraq and behaving worse than Adolf Hitler, in remarks underscoring the depth of opposition in Turkey to U.S. policy in the region. The occupation has turned into barbarism." Yeni Safak newspaper prominently quoted Mehmet Elkatmis, head of parliament’s human rights commission, as saying. "The U.S. administration is committing genocide…in Iraq." (See:http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=628399§ion=news).
In such a situation all the world can say to delusionals at the New York Times: Best of luck as you are dragging the US to the grave that you have already digged for it with your sloppy analysis and biased reporting.
Again, the question is: protect whom? The same thugs and sell outs mentioned above or the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Protect Green Zone and a few mile territory in Kabul or the cities after cities and villages after villages that the US is raising to the ground in occupied and semi-occupied countries, such as Pakistan?
Of course killers, dictator and human rights abusers like Musharraf, Mubarak, Allavi, Karzia, Karimov and their collaborators are the people that the US is protecting and the New York Times wishes it to succeed in this mission.
As far ordinary Iraqis, for example, are concerned, the US starved them to death for 12 years. The civilised America then bombed them to death for weeks with “shock and awe” like noble missions. And now it is flattening their homes for the last three years only to pacify everyone at least till holding a mock election to grant more legitimacy to its monsters in Iraq.
The US is going to lose on this point as well because it is not ready to protect the masses that are totally against US aggression and designs to impose an alien way of life on them.
Furthermore, its collaborators are too few and too weak to survive for too long without the US protection. The question is: for how long can the US afford to protect its stooges? May be for too long, but not forever. How long can the US stay in these occupied lands. May be for too long, but not forever because these places do not belong to it in the first place. Granting protection to its puppets is thus as short term and shaky as its occupations.
During the moments of excessive arrogance General Abizaid claims: "every once in a while, the Romans would get a legion overrun. We haven’t even had a platoon overrun” (Nov 25, 2004) and “we can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on earth, and everybody knows it” (Nov 27).
However, arrogant Abizaid forgets that the US could hardly generate a fraction of moral power per square inch of the mind or soul of the people under its occupation.
Even the thugs in the American legions are not sincerely with the US. They are not impressed with the US moral leadership. They are simply there for worldly gains and would switch sides much before the US run out of gas on the last mile. Too high a price the US is paying for their protection. The more the New York Times calls for their protection, the deeper it digs a grave for the US to rest in forever to come.
This is the most laughable element identified by the NY Times at a time when a growing number of Americans are losing trust in its duty to inform. They are switching to alternative sources for information.
Since when has the NY Times assumed that the US can play a role in genuine information sharing when even majority of the Americans are leaving the pro-establishment sources such as CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, LA Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and Reuters, having monopoly over reaching the people under occupation?
Banning Al-Jazeera and assuming that now the US would be able to effectively misinform the world with the help of its embedded journalists and reporters like Friedman, amounts to living in fool’s paradise.
The more the time goes by, the more the people realise the ulterior motives of the United States. It is difficult for the US to hide its intentions that it is neither a war on terrorism, nor on weapons of mass destruction, not even a war for democracy and freedom. It is pure and simple a war on Islamic ideology, as the 9/11 commission’s report has concluded and as General Abizaid declared long ago: “the two broadest strategic problems we have to deal with…happen to be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia…. It is a battle of ideas as much as it is a military battle” (January 29, 2004.
If informing about this dream is what the New York Times wants the US to inform others, this information has already started to backfire. All that the world has yet to see is whether, the US would be able to even complete the last mile with such malicious intentions of changing the way of life and the faith of 1.3 billion people.
Seems as if the New York Times is joking again with expectations from the US to invest more in Iraq. It has already invested billions and has sacrificed more that 1000 Americans (official figures, which are definitely wrong) and more than 100,000 Iraqis (not to count 1.8 million whose life was invested for the US success through economic sanctions). Most importantly, the US is not there to invest. It is there to exploit. As long as the intentions remain maliciously directed towards exploitation, relying on increased investment is a sure recipe for more disaster.
Motivate whom and with what? Unfortunately the US is left with nothing to inspire and motivate others either to join the crusade or to submit to its will. All it is left with is the military power and that is why General Abezaid constantly talks in the following terms:
"To deter a nation state you should never underestimate the air and naval power of the United States…We have an incredible amount of power..And so we can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on earth, and everybody knows it…If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power than can match us militarily…As it pursues a long war against Muslim extremism, the United States should rely on local forces… After all, who better can go against the cellular structures in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, wherever you may find them, but the people that live there.” 
The US cannot motivate others with force or the torture centres like Abu Gharib, or concentration camps like Guantanamo, or with dirty tricks like tying up women and children on top of the US tanks and humvees in Fallujah.
The US only can hope to intimidate and terrorise others with such tactics. However, even that is not possible against a people whose families are already perished through the earlier economic sanctions or shock and awe mission and liberation adventures.
The US with its war machine, and a whole lot of lies behind it, can only –” repeat only –” de-motivate and make others prefer death over living tied to the visible leash of Lindy England in Abu Gharib torture centre or to the invisible leashes of Paul Bremer and others in Baghdad, Kabul, Islamabad and Cairo.
So, any expectation of the US to improve on the counts mentioned above is useless.
These are the only last remaining elements that a well-paid, well-travelled, well-informed and most resourceful chief foreign correspondent from the New York Times could come up with for the American success in occupied lands.
Interestingly, the more we analyse the same elements, the more we reach the conclusion that the US has already lost on these fronts and there is no chance, whatsoever, for it to stand up again.
The US has already lost on the last mile. It is only a matter of time before it actually expires.
. Thomas L. Friedman, “The last mile,” the New York Times, November 28, 2004.
. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command. Nov 27, 2004