AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
What I'm saying that in such a case, what would be the definition of "winning?" Like, what would the end game have been in Vietnam? And even if we did "win," would it have been worth it? We dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than all of World War II. You can't really bomb an enemy into submission when his will is indestructible, which is shown by the fact that the NVA kept on fighting even after sustaining inordinate casualty rates. In the end, everything we did in Vietnam was pretty much just bad policy, beginning with the decision to become militarily involved there.It would have been fought to win, not just reach a certain political stopping point. Factor out the politicians and places like Haiphong and Hanoi wouldn't have been off limits to American bombing.
Perhaps. But the Cold War wasn't won with military force (more like Communism killed itself), and we'll never defeat "terrorism." Terrorism is a strategy, it is a means to an end. You can't really "defeat" something like terrorism.We defeated Facism and Bushidoism during WW2. So, you're incorrect there.
You're right about not being able to defeat them or even find them because they're already gone, real gone... Kaboom!!