Asymmetrical Forever War is over when one side loses the will to fight.

[Doug_Nightmare]

The superior force loses by not winning. The inferior force wins by not losing.. The war is over when one side loses the will to fight.

See The Peloponnesian War and Victor Davis Hanson’s A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans fought the Peloponnesian War (2005, Random).

The first modern forever war, Viet Nam veteran Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War (1974, Ridan) was 3,000 years long, asymmetrical in time, and ended with the end of humanity subsumed into the clone Kahn.

 

[JTHunter2]

If you are using this as a reference to yesterday's drone attack on that Iranian terrorist general, I would much rather see the U.S. do a "rolling thunder" artillery/bombing run on ALL of Iran's major population centers. Chase these malcontents back into their deserts. Put them back in the Stone Age where they and their misguided culture belong.
This can be done with aerial bombing, even by drones and cruise missles. There doesn't have to be American GIs put in harm's way to do this.
All we need is the resolution and fortitude to put these troublemakers out of business, hopefully permanently.

 

[2a4all]

If you are using this as a reference to yesterday's drone attack on that Iranian terrorist general, I would much rather see the U.S. do a "rolling thunder" artillery/bombing run on ALL of Iran's major population centers. Chase these malcontents back into their deserts. Put them back in the Stone Age where they and their misguided culture belong.
This can be done with aerial bombing, even by drones and cruise missles. There doesn't have to be American GIs put in harm's way to do this.
All we need is the resolution and fortitude to put these troublemakers out of business, hopefully permanently.

"Misguided cultures". We said that about every enemy we've ever fought, whether we were the aggressor or the defender (which one depends on who's telling the tale). And those folks said the same about us. After the wars ended, we ended up providing incentives to help them achieve economic parity and become allies, or at least friends of mutual enemies Their culture didn't change all that much.

I agree that we should minimize the risk to American GIs.

 

[Doug_Nightmare]

https://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Third-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/1472513517

The Crusades: A History is the definitive account of a key topic in medieval and religious history. Jonathan Riley-Smith, a world authority on the subject, explores the organisation of a crusade, the experience of crusading and the crusaders themselves, producing a textbook that is as accessible as it is comprehensive.

This exciting new third edition includes:
- Substantial new material on crusade theory, historiography and translated texts
- An expanded scope that extends the text to cover the decline of crusading in the nineteenth century
- Valuable pedagogical features, such as a revised bibliography, maps, illustrations and a brand new chronology

This book is essential reading for all students and scholars seeking to understand the Crusades and their significance in world history.

The Saracens have been cutting heads since the Sixth Century of the Christian Era - and rolling cart full of heads through Iberian cities to terrorize the infidel inhabitants. The Saracens invented terrorism.

Cultures are not equal. Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future
https://www.amazon.com/Culturism-Word-Value-Our-Future/dp/0978577701.
Fetching this link, I see that Dr. John Kenneth Press has a new 2017 book. So much to read, so little time.

Cultures are not equal.
https://www.amazon.com/War-Like-Other-Athenians-Peloponnesian/dp/B07YQ6HYW7

Victor Davis Hanson has given us painstakingly researched and pathbreaking accounts of wars ranging from classical antiquity to the 21st century. Now he juxtaposes an ancient conflict with our most urgent modern concerns to create his most engrossing work to date, A War Like No Other.

Hanson compellingly portrays the ways Athens and Sparta fought on land and sea, in city and countryside, and details their employment of the full scope of conventional and non-conventional tactics, from sieges to targeted assassinations, torture, and terrorism. He also assesses the crucial roles played by warriors such as Pericles and Lysander, artists, among them Aristophanes, and thinkers including Sophocles and Plato.

Hanson's perceptive analysis of events and personalities raises many thought-provoking questions: Were Athens and Sparta like America and Russia, two superpowers battling to the death? Is the Peloponnesian War echoed in the endless, frustrating conflicts of Vietnam, Northern Ireland, and the current Middle East? Or was it more like America's own Civil War, a brutal rift that rent the fabric of a glorious society, or even this century's schism between liberals and conservatives? Hanson daringly brings the facts to life and unearths the often surprising ways in which the past informs the present.

[/quote][/quote]

 

[solus]

oh please...

"Hanson quote, He vocally supported Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, describing him as "a rare sort of secretary of the caliber of George Marshall" and a "proud and honest-speaking visionary" whose "hard work and insight are bringing us ever closer to victory"."

and yet...

"Hanson is a supporter of Donald Trump, authoring a 2019 book The Case for Trump. Trump praised the book.In the book, Hanson defends Trump's insults and vile language as "uncouth authenticity", and praises Trump for "an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics."

further,

1. Classicists Victoria Cech and Joy Connolly have found Who Killed Homer? to have considerable pitfalls. Reviews of the book have noted several problems with the authors' perception of classical culture:

2. American military officer Robert L. Bateman, in a 2007 article on the Media Matters for America website, criticized Hanson's thesis, arguing that Hanson's point about Western armies preferring to seek out a decisive battle of annihilation is rebutted by the Second Punic War,

a. In his first response, Hanson argued that Bateman was engaged in a "puerile, politically correct" attack on him, and of being motivated by current left-wing politics rather than a genuine interest in history.​

​

b. In a second response, Hanson called Bateman's use of personal, adolescent invectives such as "pervert", "feces", and "devil", as unprofessional and "unhinged", and had no role in scholarly disagreements, accusing Bateman of being poorly informed of history and geography, as well as engaging in conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer."​

​

Wiki continues with this illustrious author's validity in reporting Hanson's perceptions of the classics...

oh yes dougie..a viable and quotable source to hold in high regard!