[AlexandrB]

> The inability of the military to effectively execute total war because of public palatability leads to these outcomes - zombie wars that can never be won, because no one has the stomach to do/say what actually needs to be done.

What more could have been done in Vietnam? The US deployed napalm, agent orange, reinstituted the draft at home, maintained a policy of inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy, and still failed to achieve victory. It's also hard to justify "total war" when your sovereignty/existence is not at stake and you're effectively an interloper in other people's conflicts.

[forz877]

The US never committed to total war in Vietnam, likely because of consequences from the USSR and China.

Just because harsh agents were used doesn't mean the US couldn't have been harsher. They certainly could have been.

> It's also hard to justify "total war" when your sovereignty/existence is not at stake and you're effectively an interloper in other people's conflicts.

Yes, that's my point - so instead you end up in 20 year zombie wars that bleed over time and accomplish little.