Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
Does conflict necessarily have to result in a "better" peace or can it result in a simple lack of further conflict do to one parties inability to continue effectively (at that time)?

Furthermore would this then lend to the transition to different types of conflict and thus the necessity to study and understand each in and of itself?

Finally isn't it human nature that we require definitive separation of styles of warfare in order to understand how to prosecute them effectively. in other words whether they are truly different or not matters not so much as how we approach them differently.
To me, the answer is "of course" to both questions. There are many historical examples of a conflict not resulting in a "better" peace (World War I springs immediately to mind, but there are many other examples as well). The question of a "better" peace also raises the complementary question: better for whom?

And I agree that it is part of human nature to want to "label" things to aid in discrete study and (possibly) understanding. It also allows us to select the proper tools for an undertaking. Assuming that we would do this for all activities other than war doesn't really get us anywhere. The trick is to determine when labeling (or anti-labeling) has gotten in the way of actual understanding. I mention anti-labeling specifically, because I think over-simplification can be as big a problem as over-detailing.