Bob's World, most excellent point for consideration, one loss (Vietnam) and one draw (Korea), and we still won. However, looking at it from the Soviet perspective, they also had one loss (Afghanistan), so it was a tie militarily.

Wilf, I agree with your comment, but my underlying point is that we have a particular way of waging war, or a preferred way, which I suspect is largely shaped by our culture. Other nations and non-state actors may look at how they approach war entirely different. Regardless of how each opponent behaves and designs their strategy it is still war, but we generally tend to approach war in a threat centric manner, or using George's resurrected quote, get there the firstest with the mostest. I think the phrase spectrum of war is misleading, but it will have to do for now. We "tend" to have the same approach regardless of where we are in the spectrum of war (low intensity or high intensity).

I agree strongly with you and COL Maxwell's assertion that war is war, what I am wrestling with is what Selil hit on, the types of warfare. I believe there is some utility to categorize the types (conventional, irregular, unconventional, etc.), as long as one doesn't take himself too seriously. The type of training and strategy for fighting each one can be considerably different. Is there any disagreement with assertion? If so, please explain. I agree with Ken, we tend to try to wrestle with a boxer (bad analogy since the wrestler would normally win), thus my argument is not with the "war is war" argument, but over the types of warfare and how we organize, train and plan to fight them. In my opinion that is the so what of this discussion.