I was reading a thread at the Netscape blog about why and how Iraq is lost. It made me clarify some of my ideas from an earlier post.

One commenter put forth the notion that wars are in fact diplomacy by other means and that the object is to gain a post war commercial advantage. When you are in such a war, profit and loss calculations are certainly in order. Our war with the USSR certainly was of that nature. The Soviets promised a chicken in every pot. America promised two (our poor people have a fat problem if that is any indication).

So the question again is: when is it wise to shake hands and make up and when must one fight on despite losses and adversity? It all depends on the enemy you fight. Do they want a chicken in every pot or Valhalla?

The Valhalla types require harsher treatment, because they will not respond to profit and loss except in extremity.

Eric at Classical Values has some thoughts. The Belmont Club post on the Three Conjectures is also apt.

Here is my position on Iraq:

In Iraq our enemies are stalemated just as much as we are. We only have to fight one day more than they do. However long that takes.

For those who need a little inspiration in these troubled times I can do no better than quote Winston Churchill extensively Which I do here. (also linked above)

Cross Posted at Power and Control and at The Astute Bloggers