I reviewed all postings before writing to not be too repetitive. Those who are saying the quote does not ring true when citing wars the US has "lost" or is currently "not winning" are arguably misreading the quote in a couple of ways. First, the quote does not say that violence is the only factor or way to "win" a war. Second, the quote is that it "settles more issues" and perhaps the settling of the issue is not victory, e.g. WWII, but defeat, VietNam. That also depends on the side you're on, doesn't it. Couldn't the communists argue that they, in part, won VietNam through violence? Also, the "losses" you are citing do not consider that the US did not use most devastating violence available, e.g. nuclear weapons. Perhaps those "losses" would be "wins" if the US had used *more* violence such as nuclear weapons. And that goes to my last point about the person who posted the other quote of RAH about "prolonged" war not solving problems. If *more* violence had been used as I suggested above, i.e. nuclear weapons, and it had been used early on, perhaps then the wars the US has "lost" would not have been losses and not have been "prolonged." That quote you cite about "prolonged" war is not necessarily contrary to the main quote we're discussing on this page. I am not advocating a particular view, just suggesting less black-and-white and non-mutually exclusive ways to think about this. I do like the quote though.