IW and Stability Operations - in your own words - what is the difference?

[Rank amateur]

As an aside, re: your other comment:You do realize we and most of the world have locked people up under those circumstances for centuries -- and will almost certainly continue to do so. I think it's a human, protect the organism thing...

I certainly didn't mean to imply that we were worse than anyone else.

Anyway, here is how msNBC described it.

"His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."

I agree with you that war is chaotic and destructive (which is why it shouldn't be entered into lightly, and if you do it, you need to win.) Other than crimes against humanity - which can happen without a war - nothing that happens during a war really bothers me. Not even friendly fire: fog of war etc. Except for one thing, when one of our guys is killed building a school, paving a road or handing out candy. To me, that is avoidable and means someone has screwed up somewhere.

As always, you earned your right to disagree. I, on the other hand, just happened to be born in a country with free speech.

"...I was thinking about the decision to commit military force in the first place - provided somebody has left you an option, which may not always be so. I think once you cross that line, be prepared for all that comes with it - doesn't mean you have to go there, but you don't want to be unprepared to if the enemy does. We should not try and change the nature of something to suit our objective - we've suffered from that one before."

I think you need to hold the people who screwed it up accountable: even if you voted for them. (If you give a politicain a free pass, you know that the next one in line is going to feel entitled to another free pass in the same situation.)

Name me a place where it's been truly successful.

Right here. The Brits left and we only use them for peaceful purposes. Except for the criminals, but there are criminals everywhere: always will be.

What if you do not have three decades or even one?

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I'm likely to agree with you rather than attack your theory.

Just wanted to save that for future reference.

that given enough time people will work through their anger. This is a flawed analysis.

All wars come to an end. We eventually decided that a Communist Vietnam wasn't the end of the world. Although, I will admit to poor word choice. "Anger" wasn't the right term. Sooner or later everyone eventually agrees that negotiation is better than war. (Even when we nuked Japan, we still had to negotiate with them.) I'm not a biblical scholar but I know that even though Pilate could have anyone he wanted crucified, he still needed to negotiate with the locals.)

Warfare is attempting to impose one's will upon another who opposes it.

I don't think I'd agree. If you accept "politics by other means" then the objective is to get a better political settlement. As per above, you never get 100% of what you want. Even if you drop a nuke, your auto workers can end up getting laid off because of Japanese car companies.