[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?

[NutCrackerBoy]

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?

That's a good point. The CIC does not know in advance how it will turn out, but makes a decision. The outcome of Korea resulting from actual policy is bad. Even though outcome could have been worse if Eisenhower had acted differently, we can look at Korea for a clue as to how things might turn out in Iraq if we were to follow an Eisenhower-type strategy. And even if Korea would have been worse if Eisenhower had acted differently, that does not indicate that the outcome in Iraq will necessarily be worse following a non-Eisenhower-like strategy.

[FastCoyote]

"I'm not sure if continuing the Korean War would have been a good thing."

Probably not, but that misses the point. If the Democrats think a withdrawal that parallels that in Korea is without dire consequences of its own, well Korea is an example of the endgame we don't want.

There can be a quagmire of disengagement just as well as a quagmire of engagement.