Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (23877)	4/8/2002 9:11:56 AM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 281500

Do you think partial victories, which don't destroy an enemy's desire to wage war, are worthwhile undertakings? depends on the situation, and the alternatives. If there is some concrete objective that can be achieved by a limited war, and if doing nothing or fighting a total war are even less attractive, then yes, partial victories can be worthwhile. This is where MacArthur was wrong about there being "no substitute for victory," because Korea is a perfect example of a limited war that made sense and was better than either letting the South fall or trying to wrest the entire peninsula from China. If the war itself will not accomplishing much, however, and if there are acceptable alternatives available, then limited wars are a bad idea, or at least need to be supplemented by an equally powerful diplomatic push to resolve the underlying problem. The dilemma Israel finds itself in is that the war probably won't accomplish all that much (at least on a net-net, long-term basis) but that no acceptable alternatives are available. So you can see the temptation for them to go for it, but still wish they'd add a political track simultaneously... tb@wimp.com