[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
At the VERY least we'd have to rule out that the war achieved our goal even by losing it, for example, but I don't want to simplify it that much. Not unlike how standing up to bully and taking a beating may still dissuade him from further aggression ( very loose non-analogy).

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. there's a gap between the focus of the war and the reason for the war. Vietnam wasn't fought because of concern for the vietnemese or because vietnam being communist was a big concern in itself. It was fought because of the feared consequences of vietnam being allowed to go communist if it wasn't fought. To judge the war it's necessary to consider the effect of the war on those consequences.

I was thinking about standing up to bullies but the Rhineland is a spiffing analogy because if we had fought over troops in the Rhineland and lost by DS's measure (i.e. germany ended with troops in the Rhineland) but stopped the expansionist plans of Germany then DS analysis would be as sound as it is for Vietnam and completely wrong. Again its because although the war would have been fought over troops in the Rhineland, it wasn't that that bothered anybody but the feared consequences of troops in the Rhineland. Sure it would be evidence that the war wasn't worth fighting but very weak evidence.

DS could argue then in the Rhineland case the war wasn't lost because the real goal of the war was to stop Germanies expansionist agression but the exact same claim could be made for vietnam AND to make the that judgement we need to consider the reasons for the war etc not merely look at the superficial result and how things turned out.

chez