And technically, the Viet Cong lost, only to gain control of the country years later. This is the manner with which the Algerians gained their independence, and Castro only needed so many victories and so many engagements. Of course, these examples, the first above all, are inapplicable to the United States in Iraq. If you will, our founders felt that they had nothing to lose (except indirect taxes), and all we have to lose today is our residual dignity. The threat of civil war, the growing power of Iran, and the course of events which Nasrallah considers victory (and that's only counting sunni-shiite conflicts) will destabilize the region if the US does not stay. It would cripple American influence in a way that might actually make us care for "international concensus," and "worse": on Europe.

retreat today and you will live to fight another day.

i really guess that depends on circumstances. one, if you are always retreating, then you really have nothing but an idea in which to fight for. but if you retreat to attack and re-take tomorrow, the more wo/men you have to fight tomorrow, the better your chances of dwindling your enemies forces significantly.

oh, and then there is that battle technique that you look like your retreating but instead are just drawing them into a trap.

like i said, depends on circumstance.

What sort of war is in question? A military "meat grinder" war over territory or religion is the classic type. Territory can't be won by retreating 90% of the time. The point of an advance is to gain more ground. If you're out for territory, then you can advance and win one battle, sign a truce and you won. You have more territory. With religion, territory can mean religious dominance. Of course religious freedom is right out, but looking at history as a whole, western civilization in the past few hundred years is the only place ever that religious freedom exists.

However, there are other types of wars. During the reign of Rome, they expanded to all parts of the known world to bring civilization to the untamed masses. They wanted not just territorial dominance, but cultural and idealogical. When they expanded to the Greek city states, they found an order comparable to their own already in place, and over the years, Rome's religion, art, architecture, language, and government all began to resemble that of the various Greek states more than thier own. In that way, Greece conqured Rome, and they could have done it without fighting one battle.

No. You can NOT win a war by retreating...but you can PREVENT a war. What I mean is that we should use the intelligence we have to consider things from every angle, not just our own. If war is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY necessary, then by all means do what is best for the SAFETY of the people. The truth is, suffering is a fact of life: either you learn to deal with that or you go under. Don't just run into a war because you think it's morally correct either (thank you president, Bush). Consider youself and the fact that the only thing that truly matters is security. It's okay to defend yourself and even defend others...but when you take a step back to analyze it all...you could be horrified by the reality of it. So my argument is simply this: do what is necessary to keep yourself and others safe. On a flip side, however, one of my favorite quotes is one of Nietzsche's in Thus Spoke Zarathustra: "You should love peace as a means to new wars, and the short peace more than the last." Who coul put it better than that brilliant old German idiot? Fighting is avoidable, but reason is not. Phew...I need to stop thinking so much, my head friggin hurts.