tequila, thanks for responding. Firstly, you are correct in pointing out that the U.S. achieved successes in Central American proxy wars, but these were just that: proxy wars and not true tests of national resolve on the order of larger conflicts. Enemies of the U.S. recognize this. Secondly, the U.S. also achieved some success in Desert Storm, but the enemy in that conflict was not decisively defeated and remained a problem for years afterward. One can argue that Desert Storm achieved its stated objectives, but perhaps the objectives were too limited for what really needed to done: permanently end the threat to U.S. interests in the region from that regime (oil, security). The Desert Storm campaign failed to do this or perhaps was not designed to do this. One can argue that it should have been in light of what the U.S. is experiencing now.

In many ways, the Cold War did turn out pretty well for the U.S., but that again was a different sort of conflict. There still remains unresolved business from the Cold War, so perhaps it will not turn out as well as we believe. How the U.S. handled certain conflicts during the Cold War certainly exposed its weaknesses to others--weaknesses U.S. enemies are now exploiting.

You are also correct in pointing out that every great power has suffered defeat since Alexander. I did not say that great powers have never lost a war or suffered defeats; what I mean is that it is never good for great powers to lose. You seem to indicate that losing is no big deal because when great powers in the past suffered defeat, it did not spell the end of them (at least immediately). Funny about Great Britain, especially in light of their recent humiliations at the hands of Iran.

I think it is a big deal whenever a great power loses (or is widely perceived to have lost), especially today because defeats are so amplified by modern media. If a great or greater power does not win convincingly, it has lost (Israel v. Hezbollah). After enough defeats, great powers cease to have the ability to successfully defend their interests and protect their people. I meant to point out that defeats can have tremendous detrimental consequences in the future--consequences that might not be readily apparent now. Because the U.S. did not decisively defeat the communists in North Korea, it has been plagued by a hostile regime for another generation. Now this regime has or potentially has the capability to do great harm to us or our allies either directly or by sharing powerful military technology with others hostile to our interests and way of life.

My definition of "winning" in Korea: total and lasting defeat of communist forces up to the Yalu River. Doing this very likely would have required some action against neighboring states supporting our enemies there (China). If we had to fortify that area, so be it. Better to fortify there than at the 38th Parallel like we are doing now. You may be right that such action might have brought Stalin and Mao closer; or the U.S. might have been able to sign a peace agreement of some sort from a position of victory and strength.

I wonder about the implications of not achieving victory in Korea were for Vietnam and future conflicts, if any. When great powers are seen as vulnerable, others are inspired to attack them and their interests. Had the U.S. won decisively in Korea and thereby made clear that it would not tolerate the spread of communism in SE Asia (and what would happen to those who tried), it might have given others (the Viet Minh) pause. We might have been able to achieve some sort of different relationship with the Viet Minh or whoever came to power in Vietnam.

I can't prove this as it is only a theory and something I put up for discussion. I could be wrong, but I would like to know what others think the implications were and are. I also wanted to see if anyone knew of any writing or research I could reference to learn more about the consequences of Korea in relation to Vietnam and future conflicts.

Lastly regarding Taiwan, I do not think the U.S. track record bodes well should Taiwan really need to be protected. I do not believe the U.S. would go to war with China to preserve Taiwan, especially if it turns out that it does not have the resolve to defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, just like it did not have the resolve to win in Vietnam and Korea. If the world perceives the U.S. lacks resolve, it cannot enforce peace like it has in many parts of the world for the last 60 years, because of how decisively it and the Allies won WWII.