[JoeFromSidney]

Unfortunately there is ambiguity in the term "limited war." A war may be limited in geographic area (we didn't attack China during the Korean war). It may be limited in the weapons used (we didn't use nukes in any of our wars since 1945). It may be limited in the objectives (recover captured territory but inflict no further punishment, as the Brits did regarding the Falklands).

The term "limited war" cannot be used without stating just what the limits are. Which in turn means deciding what constitutes "victory." For the Brits, recovering the Falklands was victory. Was pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait a "victory?" Was destroying the Al Qeda infrastructure in Afghanistan a "victory?" Without deciding ahead of time what our war objectives are, it's impossible to define "victory," and likewise impossible to determine what kind of limits should be accepted in a war.

So long as our leaders don't understand Clausewitz, let alone Sun Tzu, we're going to be mired in no-win wars because we don't know what our objectives are.

[bert]

-——Was pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait a “victory?”——

Yes and the objective was defined

[Road Glide]

[[ Unfortunately there is ambiguity in the term “limited war.” ]]

There can be no “limited war” with Islam.

In its quest for world domination, what are -Islam’s- “limits” ??

Where does Islam draw such a line ??