Has the US ever won a war when they were forced to fight a "Limited war" like in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afgan.?

Question

And if they haven't, what is the point of fighting a "limited war" in Iraq if the US military can't fight to win? Is a never ending stalemate in Iraq where a 1,000 US troops die annually acceptable?

Answer 1

The answer can be found in your question. How can you have total victory when fighting a "limited" war? If you're going to fight a war you should fight to WIN! That means using every weapon and strategy at your disposal to eliminate your enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Our politicians should decide when to go to war. Our generals should be allowed to decide how to win. Period.

Answer 2

I'm unclear on how Iraq is a "limited" war. What would make it less limited?

After all, we're not fighting against the people of Iraq -- we're simply fighting against those who are fighting with us or each other.

Are you suggesting we start carpet-bombing?

The problem is not that we are limited by politics -- the problem is, as it was in Vietnam, that we're in the middle of civil war facing an enemy who doesn't wear uniforms and won't stand out in a field somewhere, far from civilians, where we can kill them. So, unless you want to be resoponsible for a massive genocide, we have no choice but to fight the way we're fighting.

Answer 3

Well, Korea was a victory. North Korea was repelled from the south, and, was not assimilated with the south, as China and North Korea wished. Vietnam was a failure. U.N. and American troops were victorious in the Iraq Desert Storm war in that Iraq fled the country which was invaded, Kuwait.

Answer 4

Um... anytime you go to war for political game it is going to be fought with hands tied.
Just compare WWII with your aforementioned wars, there was evil in the world and our lives and civilization were truly in jepordy. We took the gloves off in WWII because no one was going to question us on our side for everyone knew what was at stake.
Now with the wars that would follow... can you tell me what reason there was for going into Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq and then justify it as reason enough to start a WAR?

Answer 5

Yes.

Granada, Iraq, Korea.

Answer 6

Fighting a limited or PC war is absolutely crazy. We won every major battle we fought in Nam. The only reason things turned out like they did is because we were fighting a PC limited war instead of doing what we did in other wars such the First and Second World Wars. I the USA and its allies will just get more vicious than the Islamo Fascists we will end the tyranny in short order. But we must stop with the PC baloney.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 7

You can't win a limited war because when you limit yourself, you don't focus on winning. That was the problem with Korea, and Vietnam. The Democrats weren't interested in winning. Afganistan has been largely a success, and will be a complete success when they have a defense force that can protect itself.

Answer 8

Our troops are not over there just for something to do. There are definate objectives. In the grand scheme of things, change must occur over there. If we choose to put our heads in the sand and ignore the situation (or worse, lie to ourselves that diplomacy will work with those people) then eventually the war will come to us.

Answer 9

Limited war is an oxymoron, just like compassionate conservative, and jumbo shrimp.

Answer 10

most history books glorify america's war results... i'm sure they'll do teh same for iraq, heck bush declared long time ago we already won. friggin idiot....