Fight a war with everything you've got, for unconditional victory, or don't fight it at all.
>> I would use the term “neo con” to refer to someone who supports undeclared wars, with undefined enemies, and rules of engagement which guarantee our troops will be pinned down for decades.
I assume you’re referring to the WOT ... because I’ve heard these complaints before (though typically on shows like DemocracyNow and Maddow, not on FR).
The war was declared (via Congressional resolutions/authorizations against both Afghanistan and Iraq). The enemy, though elusive and adept at blending in, is defined. The rules of engagement are unique due to the guerilla nature of the conflict ... but they do exist. All wars are engaged for an indefinite length until they’re over ... if, as you say, you want to “fight a war [...] for unconditional victory”, you certainly should understand that.
>> Fight a war with everything you’ve got, for unconditional victory, or don’t fight it at all.
Agreed. I think some tactical portions of this engagement have been mismanaged ... but fighting with everything for unconditional victory will not always result in a short conflict.
SnakeDoc
“I would use the term “neo con” to refer to someone who supports undeclared wars, with undefined enemies, and rules of engagement which guarantee our troops will be pinned down for decades.”
Like Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Panama, Iraq,
...also like Al Qeada...
Libertarians can play that game but they are nothing but liberals to me.