Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (147792)	10/14/2004 7:11:11 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (2) of 281500

It's not all about will, esp. when both sides have enormous reserves of will to win, but if either side has a big deficit of will to win in general or in the particular conflict then it can lose even if the other side is superior in numbers, technology, firepower, training, logistics, and/or tactics. Vietnam was a good example of it being about will. The Vietnamese communists had more will to win the the US did. Please define "will" (in such a way that these statements are not tautologies). In the Vietnam war, the U.S. expended blood and treasure far out of proportion to the possible gain, so how can you say that will (passion, determination) was lacking? Because the commitment was not infinite? Pledges to "win at any cost" are not really credible, especially for a democracy. The enemy knows we will behave at least somewhat rationally, and can therefore win by demonstrating that it is not in our rational interest to continue the war - which does not require either military or will superiority.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next