You mean, like the use of force in Afghanistan, where an approved and justified action was not finished because something juicier came along?

You mean, like the use of force in Iraq, where the public was told something that wasn't true in order to get approval, and then not enough force was provided to make the project stick?

And yes, Hezbollah is full of terrorists and criminals. Have you looked at the disproportionate number of casualties among the civilians? Israel will still have to live with Lebanese neighbors whose children they have killed. Stupidity is worth condemning too. They handed Hezbollah an opportunity to become a relief organization while making zero points.

Force has its place. Intelligent and spare use of it makes the most sense. Can we have some, please?

Re: defeat: Yes, the word does have a specific meaning. It means that the defeated party doesn't get its own way. For the West to behave like its enemies in order to achieve "security" would be defeat for the West, because the West is a collection of political and philosophical propositions. Without those, we are just another empire that will go the way of empires before us. For those who wish to defeat the West to win, all that's necessary is for us to abandon our idea-based culture and retreat into fear. That's all.

You think that open discussion of opposition to government actions equals ethical paralysis? You think that should stop because we might get hurt if it doesn't? Congratulations: You have just advocated limiting free speech because of fear of the enemy. One point to our opponents...