65 years ago, the world was in real danger of falling under the control of two totalitarian and genocidal empires. The only possible response to that threat was total war. The threat from Islamic extremists today is also very real, but they're not exactly on the cusp of world domination. So is an all-in, reinstate-the-draft, pave-the-country approach really the most appropriate response to the threat from these terror cells? The way I see it, the War on Terror is unlike any war we've ever fought in that it's primarily a war of security and intelligence, not armies squaring off against each other and the demand that puts on manpower and resources.
But on the other hand, I agree with MasterBates that a limited war means a limited chance to win that war. If we're going to go into a country and overthrow the government, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to see it through. And we certainly can't leave a country in worse shape and more dangerous than we found it. If we don't have the will to do whatever it takes to win, then we have no business starting a war. We can't just go into a country and hope that our limited war will be enough, then have no plan B when that doesn't work out.
Sounds much like the Powell Doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine