What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:

-Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
-Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
-LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
-Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks

I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
>
> -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
>
> I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
>
Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> >
> > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> >
> > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> >
> Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.

Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.. But Yeah, in regards to starting World War II, Germany DEFINITELY fucked that one up. Germany had no pressing need to acquire Danzig and in any case any Danziger who wanted to move to Germany should have been able to do so. Maybe Germany could have even negotiated some sort of deal where Danzigers would have had dual citizenships and passports--at least, with enough time.. And Danzig's total population was relatively small. MUCH smaller than in the Sudetenland. And in any case, Germany already got the rest of Czechia and its industries anyway, which more than compensates for Danzig not being a part of the German Reich.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks

This one is yet to be seen.

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:07:47 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> > >
> > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> > >
> > > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> > >
> > Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.
>
> Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.
>
Would that fear have been likely to prove well-founded? E.g. WI the Kaiser falls off his yacht during the July Crisis and this results in Germany deciding not to go to war? On the basis that the new Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm,_German_Crown_Prince is not prepared to "jump in at the deep end"?

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:45:01 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:07:47 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> > > >
> > > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > > > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > > > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > > > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> > > >
> > > > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> > > >
> > > Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.
> >
> > Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.
> >
> Would that fear have been likely to prove well-founded? E.g. WI the Kaiser falls off his yacht during the July Crisis and this results in Germany deciding not to go to war? On the basis that the new Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm,_German_Crown_Prince is not prepared to "jump in at the deep end"?

Depends on just how aggressive Russia will be once its Great Military Program is completed in 1916-1917, I suppose.

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:53:23 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:45:01 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:07:47 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> > > > >
> > > > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > > > > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > > > > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > > > > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> > > > >
> > > > Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.
> > >
> > > Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.
> > >
> > Would that fear have been likely to prove well-founded? E.g. WI the Kaiser falls off his yacht during the July Crisis and this results in Germany deciding not to go to war? On the basis that the new Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm,_German_Crown_Prince is not prepared to "jump in at the deep end"?
> Depends on just how aggressive Russia will be once its Great Military Program is completed in 1916-1917, I suppose.
>
Did Russia want any territory that Germany (or indeed Austria-Hungary) had? As opposed to France's desire for Alsace-Lorraine.

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:58:37 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:53:23 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:45:01 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:07:47 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > > > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > > > > > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > > > > > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > > > > > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.
> > > >
> > > > Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.
> > > >
> > > Would that fear have been likely to prove well-founded? E.g. WI the Kaiser falls off his yacht during the July Crisis and this results in Germany deciding not to go to war? On the basis that the new Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm,_German_Crown_Prince is not prepared to "jump in at the deep end"?
> > Depends on just how aggressive Russia will be once its Great Military Program is completed in 1916-1917, I suppose.
> >
> Did Russia want any territory that Germany (or indeed Austria-Hungary) had? As opposed to France's desire for Alsace-Lorraine.

Lviv/Lemberg? And Bukovina/Subcarpathian Ruthenia? Maybe Posen and/or Upper Silesia as well?

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 5:17:56 AM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:58:37 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:53:23 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:45:01 AM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:07:47 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 2:54:26 PM UTC-7, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> > > > > > > What are some cases (whether real or hypothetical/alternate history) where military restraint by a national leader would have significantly paid off? So far, I can think of:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > > > > > > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> > > > > > > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam, even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall under Communist rule
> > > > > > > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm NOT including George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq here because we won that war and because interestingly enough, in spite of all of the extremely massive bloodshed that this war and the subsequent ISIS War unleashed, one could make a plausible case that it could have been even worse and even more bloody for the Iraqi people had Saddam Hussein (or one of his two sons) remained in power in Iraq until the Arab Spring. I do think that the best move for the US would have been to get rid of Saddam Hussein back in 1991 or at least not to encourage Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein back then, though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously Germany deciding not to start either WWI or WWII.
> > > > >
> > > > > Touche! Though in Germany's case, it might have feared that WWI would eventually occur anyway when it itself would be in a weaker position relative to its enemies and that it was thus better to get it over with sooner rather than later--while the balance of strength was still more in Germany's favor.
> > > > >
> > > > Would that fear have been likely to prove well-founded? E.g. WI the Kaiser falls off his yacht during the July Crisis and this results in Germany deciding not to go to war? On the basis that the new Kaiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm,_German_Crown_Prince is not prepared to "jump in at the deep end"?
> > > Depends on just how aggressive Russia will be once its Great Military Program is completed in 1916-1917, I suppose.
> > >
> > Did Russia want any territory that Germany (or indeed Austria-Hungary) had? As opposed to France's desire for Alsace-Lorraine.
> Lviv/Lemberg? And Bukovina/Subcarpathian Ruthenia? Maybe Posen and/or Upper Silesia as well?
>
Can you cite any source which says that Russia had aspirations in these directions? As opposed to her desire for Constantinople as indicated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople_Agreement?

On 7/27/21 4:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:

> -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's
> bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870

He didn't. The call for war was from the public.

> -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914

Austria crushes Serbia. Russia is humiliated by the destruction
of a Slavic cousin.

Germany is emboldened, and forces a new confrontation the next year
(as the General Staff wanted to fight Russia sooner than later).
With Britain paralyzed by the three-way Irish war, and Serbia
taken out already, and Turkey drawn fully into the German orbit,
the Great War is a quick victory for Germany and its allies.

Russia is dismembered.

> -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam
> War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam,
> even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall
> under Communist rule...

With America on the run, Communists take over the rest of Indochina,
then Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines.

> -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by> September
11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
This is an unquestionable violation of the Ban on current Politics.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:32:53 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/27/21 4:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>
> > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's
> > bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> He didn't. The call for war was from the public.

Then Nappy should have resisted this, no?

> > -Tsar Nicholas II of Russia deciding not to fight for Serbia in 1914
> Austria crushes Serbia. Russia is humiliated by the destruction
> of a Slavic cousin.
>
> Germany is emboldened, and forces a new confrontation the next year
> (as the General Staff wanted to fight Russia sooner than later).
> With Britain paralyzed by the three-way Irish war, and Serbia
> taken out already, and Turkey drawn fully into the German orbit,
> the Great War is a quick victory for Germany and its allies.
>

What would be the casus belli, though? Because Russia in this TL would be EXTREMELY careful NOT to give Germany one.

> Russia is dismembered.

Ironically, even this would have been a better fate for Russia than its our TL fate since it would have avoided decades of Communism and extremely massive demographic devastation.

> > -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam
> > War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam,
> > even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall
> > under Communist rule...
>
> With America on the run, Communists take over the rest of Indochina,
> then Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines.

Pessimistic much, no? This didn't happen in 1975, after all. Well, other than the Indochina part.

> > -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by> September
> 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
> This is an unquestionable violation of the Ban on current Politics.

OK. George W. Bush deciding not to invade Afghanistan right after 9/11, instead preferring to bomb the country to smithereens. Or perhaps having Bush accept the Taliban leadership's 2002 offer to lay down their arms and permanently stay out of Afghan politics in exchange for them being given amnesty..

>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
>
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 8:11:45 AM UTC+1, WolfBear wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:32:53 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 7/27/21 4:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> >
> > > -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's
> > > bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
> > He didn't. The call for war was from the public.
> Then Nappy should have resisted this, no?
>
WI NIII is in better health than in OTL, and decides to declare the events of 11 July 1870 a French success, and leave it at that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Franco-Prussian_War#The_Hohenzollern_crisis_and_the_Ems_Dispatch "On 11 July, Benedetti spoke to King William at the watering spa at Ems, and asked him to refuse his consent to Prince Leopold's candidature; Bismarck was on holiday at his estates in East Prussia. King William agreed to order Prince Leopold to withdraw. Ollivier announced the Prussian surrender in the Chamber on 12 July and hailed it as a French triumph and a Prussian humiliation. Bismarck thought the same and considered resigning as Prime Minister." Handwave - NIII's better health ensures that he is able to ensure that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch#French_translation of the Ems Dispatch is accurate.

On 8/1/21 2:11 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> On Saturday, July 31, 2021 at 4:32:53 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 4:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>
>>> -Napoleon III of France not falling for the Ems Dispatch (Bismarck's
>>> bait) and thus not sparking the Franco-Prussian War in 1870
>> He didn't. The call for war was from the public.
>
> Then Nappy should have resisted this, no?

He was old and sick, and half-believed that the
French army would conquer. I have a bio of N III;
the last chapter is titled "The Fatalist".

> What would be the casus belli, though? Because Russia in this TL
> would be EXTREMELY careful NOT to give Germany one.

They'd fabricate one. Maybe against France, and Russia
would not abandon their _major_ ally.
>>> -LBJ (or a surviving JFK) deciding not to escalate the Vietnam
>>> War in 1965 and instead to fully withdraw from South Vietnam,
>>> even at the risk that this will cause all of Vietnam to fall
>>> under Communist rule...
>>
>> With America on the run, Communists take over the rest of Indochina,
>> then Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines.
>
> Pessimistic much, no? This didn't happen in 1975, after all > Well, other than the Indochina part.

By 1975, the Communists had been defeated in Indonesia. Also,
the US left Vietnam after fighting North Vietnam to a standstill,
and extracting allegedly permanent peace terms.

That's very different from just cutting and running before
there is any serious fighting.

>>> -Joe Biden withdrawing all US troops from Afghanistan by> September
>> 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks
>> This is an unquestionable violation of the Ban on current Politics.

> OK. George W. Bush deciding not to invade Afghanistan right after 9/11,
> instead preferring to bomb the country to smithereens.

Doesn't get Bin Laden. Does hit a lot of bystanders.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.