[FastCoyote]

Thank you Jonah, I was wondering why the Eisenhower reference rang so untrue. If Democrats are calling on us to pull an Eisenhower, it means leaving our troups on the border for sixty years while the new nutjob rulers develop nuclear weapons.

Webb should be beat over the head with this till he bleads. The Korean DMZ was no solution at all.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Eisenhower implied that he would not let the stalemate continue. That may have been interpreted in Peking and Moscow and, the he might take MacArthur's approach to victory.

I'm not sure if continuing the Korean War would have been a good thing. I doubt if Ike would have used nukes to end the war, since the Soviets had nukes. Also, in the new book about Mao "The Untold Story," it came out that Mao convinced Stalin to allow Kim to invade the South in an effort to bleed US military forces with the countless Chinese forces. Continuing the war would have required bombing China and becoming more offensive. I wonder how it would have turned out?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Not on the border. The "Eisenhower" solution suggests we partition Iraq into part that likes us, and part that doesn't, and that we put all our troops on THAT border, essentially being the tripwire in a civil war.

It was vietnam where we tried the "move troops out of the country". That lead to our enemies destroying the country, AND a neighboring country, and leaving the people we "supported" in abject misery for 3 decades.

At least in Korea, we only left the world in terror, and half the country in misery -- the part we did NOT abandon turned out quite well.

Maybe THAT is the lesson we need.