In politics, it seems, retreat is honorable if dictated by military considerations and shameful if even suggested for ethical reasons.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You know, you don't retreat in the defense of freedom. You don't retreat in the defense of moral government and limited government. You don't retreat because people are going to defend bad things.
The impossibility of a retreat makes no difference in the situation of men resolved to conquer or die; and, believe me, my friends, if your conquest could be bought with the blood of your general, he would most cheerfully resign a life which he has long devoted to his country.
I will not retreat; I will find the strength to reach my goal.
But courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility.
When distrust exists between governments, when there is a danger of war, they will not be willing to disarm even when logic indicates that disarmament would not affect military security at all.
If I had undertaken the practical direction of military operations, and anything went amiss, I feared that my conscience would torture me, as guilty of the fall of my country, as I had not been familiar with military tactics.
Peace comes through strength, not through retreat.
Military strength in reserve is better than military strength being reigned upon the other side including all of its innocent civilians.
Never retreat. Never explain. Get it done and let them howl.
No retreat. No retreat. They must conquer or die who've no retreat.