Sounds like you advocate a military state. Civilians are screwing up everything.
Maybe to simple folk.
I advocate a nation where civilians decide to go to war and then get the **** out of the way so we can win them.
WWII: "The Greatest Generation." Two atomic bombs over Japan and Germany's Dresen. Decisive victory.
Korean War: Restrictions and rules by civilains far removed. Civilians controlled the conduct of combat lines and in the end slashed a line across Korea and called it "victory."
Vietnam War: Restrictions and rules by civilians far removed. Politicians refused to even call it a war, because "conflict" had a better ring to it. After stringing it out, by demanding the military give up land it took the day before and with no end of supply from untouchable Cambodia, we gave up and left.
Somalia: Restrictions and rules by civilians in the UN who were afraid to fight for the needy and instead opted to pretend that the enmy would just stop being mean. We tucked tail and ran after everybody else did.
Bosnia: Restrictions and rules by civilians and in the end the country was made safe for human trafficing and weapons runners.
Afghanistan War: Civilians controlled that war and today seek "alternate" ways to get out.
Iraq War: Civilains insisting that their plan for war trumped the military's living CENTCOM plan. Civilians insisting that virtually every rule of occupation 101 is ingored. And Fallujah II? That was the result of civilians insisting that we abandon Fallujah I on the ten yard line.
All of these have something in common. And don't try to state that they are less than conventional, because our wars before the World War were non-conventional. We have a history of winning non-conventional wars. What is in common is that all were places where the military was tossed in before the civilian communuity grew a conscience. Of course, after this conscience was realized, we find ways to remove our military with "victory" being a non-issue. All it took for Afghanistan and Iraq was a few reporters in country right? All of a sudden the thirst for revenge and the desire to have other men kill for them gave way to criticizing what war is.
Now, let's look at the Gulf War and the turn around in Iraq.
What names come to mind in the form of leadership during the Gulf War? Is it Bush or is it General Schwarzkopf and General Powell? What names come to mind in the form of Iraq's early misery? Rumsfeld, Cheney? What about after the turn around? Is it General Petraeus? Just these two wars shows us what damage civilians can do even without using the rest of the later half of the twentieth century. If you want war, send the military and get the **** out of the way. Civilians have only proven to make our wars linger on as they deliberate whether or not to be there. Whining about the destruction the military causes seems to trump the fact that the war would already be over had they let the practitioners do their job. Nothing is more dangerous to our troops than civilians who know "exactly" what to do. How many of you perform your own operations? Surely, your surgeon doesn't know what he's doing either.
By all means, let's pretend that war with North Korea is something we can hug out. In the end, it's only our troops that have to deal with a dug in and prepared enemy. None of the civilians that allowed them to prepare with their nonesense will be there.