[The_Rorschach]

Unfortunately for you, I paid more attention to Andrew Jackson and James Madison than George Carlin. More unfortunate is that I am refering to mission statements, and not dictionaries, when choosing the terminology best suited for such political discourse. There is nothing politically incorrect, nor politically correct, in calling the minor skirmishes of the past two decades 'low intensity conflicts.' Having been active duty Navy during the Afghanistan campaign, I can tell you, noone in the service called it a war.

A good thing as it didn't qualify for that dubious distinction. No more than Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti or any of the other half dozen half asses engagements our elated politicians felt so fit to meddle in. Our aims were clear, our involvement minimal, our presence evaporating as quickly as possible.

As for Vietnam and Korea. . .Wars have winners, and wars have losers. American forces in Vietnam never lost on the battlefield, yet Saigon was lost. . .Why? Well, the long and the short of it was because we weren't an allied power in the war. He weren't playing for keeps. We were peace keeping. That was the official explanation for our presence, and despite general opinion, thats really what it was. The entire affair is much more complex than that, but if you can't be bothered to educate yourself on issues which still impact the current state of affairs, then really neither can I.

Korea was a UN peace keeping action. The US provided the majority of the contribution made towards that aim, including propositioning the initial vote to consider armed response to what was not at all an internal conflict (indeed, we would have taken action years earlier save for a certain Soviet power exercising Veto rights) but that is neither here nor there. We were not an allied power, we were -by obligation to the UN Charter- doing what we had sworn we would should such instances arise (like sovereign powers being over-run by the influence and backing of invading imperialistically bent nations).