What is interesting is that US Forces have been in Japan and Germany now for over 60 years, and in South Korea for over 50 years - with no end in sight.

Why are these situations then tolerated, but a comment that US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan may last several decades such a surprise?

If we learned one thing from WWI, it was that dumping a location where foes remain canl be extremely costly downstream. I'm not keen on a long-term presence in the Mideast at all, but also am not sure whether the risks for the folk in year 2030 are worth the gamble to pack the tent and exit stage-west.

So, if there should not be a long-term presence in Iraq/Afghanistan, what should be done differently than what happened after WWI? In other words, where's the PLAN, complete with the risk assessments?

As far as the money goes, are we getting shafted? Probably! War always brings profiteers, clear back to the Revolution. War always brings waste - too much going on with too little oversight. There never has been a "well-managed, fiscally-responsible" war - too many people with too many interests coupled with too much confusion. It's just one of those facts of existence....