[djacq75]

Originally Posted by tw

Then you need to learn the concept called "strategic objective". Unconditional surrender defined the conditions upon which a military operation would lead to a political solution. It was the strategic objective that even defined the exit strategy. It was defined by Churchill and Roosevelt when both meet in the White House to define how WWII would be won.

It was defined by specific persons, and could be redefined by specific persons to accommodate new circumstances. You seem not to understand the difference between metaphysical facts and man-made demands.

This also begs the question, though, of why I should give a damn about Roosevelt, Churchill, or their "strategic objectives." Had I been alive at the time, and experienced enough to see through FDR's bullshit the way I see through Bush's today, I would've opposed entry into the war in the first place. In that case I wouldn't have cared all that much if their "strategic objectives" were achieved or fell to pieces.

Your idea that it was a 'bad-ass' expression suggests you don't even understand why the "Mission Accomplished" war cannot be won. We have no strategic objective and therefore have no exit strategy. It also defines why a Vietnam war could only be lost. Why body counts rather than fundamental military and political objectives were how we fought Vietnam to a loss.

The political objective in the Vietnam war was fairly clear--to preserve the dominance of non-Communists in South Vietnam. It wasn't a practical objective because the entire country was ridden with Communists, which we should've figured out.

Unconditional surrender was THE objective in WWII because those politicians (unlike Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfovitz, etc in the George Sr administration) did their job, up front, when the US entered that war. Unconditional surrender is extemely important in understanding why WWII was won AND changed the entire worldwide political landscape. A military objective that also demonstrates why WWI was so inconclusive.

They "did their job"? Yes, they did...if you agree with Groucho Marx's view that "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedy." That describes WWII to a tee, and most other wars, for that matter.

WWI was inconclusive precisely because the Versailles treaty tried to impose the "political objectives" about which you have been waxing enthusiastic. (And because it left a government in power in Russia that was worse than any the West had faced before--at least since Genghis Khan--or would face later.)