Dart said:
I believe there is nothing wrong with an agressive foreign policy so long as we are more selective in what we get ourselves into. Stop the spread of communism? Lame. Bail out an otherwise defenseless country who has been invaded by a dominant neighbor? That's the right battle.
As a rule I am against armed conflict of any kind. In my opinion violence doesn't solve problems, rather it exacerbates existing ones, creates new ones, and is in and of itself a problem. However, I would consider this attitude a step in the right direction, and would settle in the present for a leader to adopt it.
The biggest problems with the former war on communism, and the current war on terror, is that the open-ended nature of these objectives can and are twisted to fulfill other, less noble, ends. Many an innocent, defenseless country was invaded, terrorized, and pillaged under the anti-communist agenda. Similarly, the war on terror gives the appearance of justification for the American Army to invade any country they want and oust the government of the day for a more pro-America regime. While my ideals force me to say that no battle should ever be fought with violence, I would settle for violence being used in battles that ought to be fought.
Which is why, as Cherry first stated, clear objectives and aggressors must be defined before the war starts. There must be a point set at the onset of war that lets the military, and all involved in the battle, know when they've done their job. Knowing what that job is, who it involves, and when its done, is not only logistically helpful, but can itself be used to determine if this is the "right battle" to fight. Getting to that point would be a wonderful thing.
