It depends on what the definition of "war" is.
[link|http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001320010-2001325231,00.html|At least they're not fighting the last war]
Errr, ummmm:
"The war on terrorism could be likened, they said, to the war on drugs or poverty"
Neither of which was a proper war, and neither of which was successful. The Great Society: Vietnam in the projects.
"They point to the campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. Although the airstrikes fitted more closely to the \ufffdold doctrine concept\ufffd of using massed firepower to target the enemy, which brought criticism from many parts of the world, Nato was also seen to be working as a humanitarian agency with its operation in Albania helping to build shelters for the thousands of refugees pouring out of Kosovo.
The eventual outcome, the political downfall of Slobodan Milosevic and the decision by the new Government to hand him over to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, is seen as a classic example of how military action can serve two purposes, defeating the enemy and effecting political change."
Okay, that makes me feel a little better about this. It can be made to work, or it can be screwed up royally. I vote for making it work.
