Obviously, the greater the length of a war the higher is likely to be the number of casualties in it on either side.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction.
But I would argue that a longer war it's more difficult to keep records than a shorter war.
Statistics have shown that mortality increases perceptibly in the military during wartime.
The final outcome of a war is often determined by the degree of initiative shown on each side.
Unfortunately, in war, there are casualties, including among the civilian population.
I'm saying this as a Republican: In the White House, the effort that goes in and wherever these decisions are made, as to limit civilian casualties, is more probably than any in the history of the world, especially when you consider the history of warfare.
War doesn't need more participants. It needs fewer participants.
War is often about making the least-worst decision. The same could be said about politics. But the stakes are higher in war, when the commander-in-chief is called upon to defend the nation.
We all know that in war the political and military factors have to complement each other.
Nowhere are our calculations more frequently upset than in war.
No opposing quotes found.