Better analogy, IMHO than Vietnam to Iraq.

TR

The author seems to forget that the US was a colony, and through the use of light fighting and insurgency - beat the Empire. We, as a nation have forgotten our roots, and have mainstreamed our military over the last 200+ years to match the 'regular' forces of the European model. As a point of fact, most of the irregular units that fought and won our 'insurrection' were disbanded almost immediately after the surrender of Cornwallis. What gained us our freedoms, and set us apart was our use of irregular forces, guerrillas, insurgency, and stealth - the Brits called it cowardly, and ungentlemanly, the Phrench borrowed a few of the models, as did the Germans and Poles. Our military should remember its revolutionary roots, but has become mired in the conventional, mainstream and bureaucratic traditions of the European model. Our military has no one to balme but itself for its conventionalism. We, as SF soldiers, chose to train for the battles that others despised, because there was less glory but much more gain, we chose to stay with the roots of the irregular Revolutionary Army, look at our heritage right down to Roger's Rangers...

***rant, over***

It's not an analogy drawn much on the pol side, given the morality issues previously discussed. I've seen the analogy mostly drawn by military professionals and military historians, especially those who've read Max Boot's The Savage Wars Of Peace (a good book on the early conflicts which falls victim to Marine Corps hagiography in its Vietnam discussion).

Irregular forces should disappear after the successful conclusion of a war, unless they wish to continue to resist the new government.

It is a common misconception that irregular forces and unconventional warfare won the Revolutionary War. The irregulars and the militia usually cut and ran when the real fighting started. Some of the largest battles they fought was with rival Loyalist forces in their AORs. The war was concluded largely fought and won by a conventional ground victory with the assistance of the French Navy, but most of all, by the decision of the Brits to sue for peace.

FYI, the conventional forces were stood down as well, or rerturned to their respective states as militia members.

The founding fathers feared a standing army, and the post-War Army was very small indeed.

TR

Author also seems to have forgotten about the Indian Wars. As those who have read Imperial Grunts will know, there are some people who make a pretty good argument that the Indian Wars were the defining fight for the US Army.

TR-
Yes, the conventional forces carried the brunt of the casualties, and the largest battles - but , the irregular forces using harrass and move brought the Brits to those major campaigns. The use of combined regular and irregular forces, playing their individual strengths was a major factor in the Revolution. Well, that and stretched/interdicted supply lines for the Brits...