The only reason you could fight two wars at once, was because you had more troops then just YOUR armed forces...and let me tell you...you couldnt do a third front.
Also it depends what war your talking about. In Hellmand...yeah it WAS pretty much down to England, and in Basra...yeah...same story. Your forgetting that your allied helpped you conqure in the first place.
want me to tell you why you couldnt have done it without another member of the security council on your side? Because your country is geographically TOO FAR away from the wars it fights...your munnitions, your aircrafts need storing, moving along, refueling...where the Hell do you suppose that takes place???
You'd have effectively have to do it completely by ship..not sure thats possible with afghanistan...though it would have been possible with Iraq...though whether you would have actually won...who knows...and before you say anything else...understand that what gave you the ability to have allied forces...was the fact that England went along with you...do you think Canada, Austrailia would have jumped to your aid AGAINST our wishes??
This is precisely the embodiment of the United States that makes it EXTREMELY hard work and rather UNrewarding, to be your allies...
Face Facts...NO man is an Island...that include America...if you go beyond your means you will be responsible for the collapse of your Super-power...as we nearly saw didnt we with the greedy sub-prime market, and the foolish bankers...you'll be the death of us all if you dont LISTEN to what other Nations say who have BEEN where you are, for A lot longer then you.
Soooo the analogy is poor...and whats poorer is that its written to a European audience who knows in depth stuff that the U.S public opinion is choosing to ignore.