>> I would use the term “neo con” to refer to someone who supports undeclared wars, with undefined enemies, and rules of engagement which guarantee our troops will be pinned down for decades.
I assume you’re referring to the WOT ... because I’ve heard these complaints before (though typically on shows like DemocracyNow and Maddow, not on FR).
The war was declared (via Congressional resolutions/authorizations against both Afghanistan and Iraq). The enemy, though elusive and adept at blending in, is defined. The rules of engagement are unique due to the guerilla nature of the conflict ... but they do exist. All wars are engaged for an indefinite length until they’re over ... if, as you say, you want to “fight a war [...] for unconditional victory”, you certainly should understand that.
>> Fight a war with everything you’ve got, for unconditional victory, or don’t fight it at all.
Agreed. I think some tactical portions of this engagement have been mismanaged ... but fighting with everything for unconditional victory will not always result in a short conflict.
SnakeDoc
If you think that only the likes of Rachel Maddow are entitled to make this point, I strongly beg to differ.
We knew that World War II would be "of indefinite length until over" but we also knew that the war had to end with Hitler at the end of a rope, and the Nazi ideology ground out of existence. I have no faith that any equivalent event will bring the "war on terror" to a close.
Failing that, I'll know the war is being won when I can carry my Leatherman on an airliner again, when the metal detectors come down at the Smithsonian, and the concrete barriers disappear from Pennsylvania avenue. Care to speculate on the time frame for those events??