Technically you’re correct and I think he should have mentioned this. Would have been interested to see what kind of arguments he’d bring forth…

As I said in another comment though, making war costly is basically just waging war. Maybe it will become too costly in one month, maybe one year, maybe five. Maybe Russia will lob a couple of tactical nukes in the direction of Ukraine. Maybe China and India or India and Pakistan get into a hot war because Russia is distracted.

Exhaustion is not a precise strategy and it’s not a short-term or even mid-term strategy when one looks at the Soviet-Afghan war or the Vietnam war. Years of death and destruction can hardly be called a strategy.

Three leads to number two

Not in Afghanistan. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam.

That was all the US deciding to give up and go home. There wasn’t really a negotiated settlement.

Certainly in Afghanistan, there were discussions, a departure date, and agreements

But that were pretty much pro forma, after the Occupier pretty much signaled they were ready to throw in the towel.

And long after the average Jane and Joe on the street could be expected to care even a whit about about what was happening in that far-off nominal protectorate, or why.

I feel like we're just chasing are tails with definitions. Even countries like North and South Korea have discourse. I guess the original article was a little rigid with its 2 definitions. Since countries have stopped declaring war, formally ending Wars how to become a lot less clear