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.
Bookmarks