in <u+201c> when president trump goes to war <u+201d> (review, nov. 19), eliot a. cohen omits discussion of the most critical antecedent planning required in committing our nation to war<u+2014>establishing our long-term objective. what conditions are we ultimately aiming to achieve? war is an optional interim step on a path to realizing our goal. understanding this context means envisioning postwar governance in occupied territories and having an a priori strategy in place for achieving a lasting peace. such strategy must involve establishment of a stable society that provides security and improves life<u+2019>s lot for the vanquished. this postwar action plan will have ramifications on how we conduct the war<u+2014>what conditions cities are left in, how noncombatants are treated and who will be left to re-establish infrastructure. absent social stability, factionalism and resistance will fester and, as the past century<u+2019>s history has shown in both europe and the middle east, bellicosity will re-emerge. we must be as good at rebuilding as we are at destruction. peter irwin kingston, n.y. there are two more critical elements a president must consider before sending our troops to war: 1. what should <u+201c>victory<u+201d> look like? how and when do we know we have finished what we set out to do? 2. what do we do after victory? do we stay and rebuild, enter into treaties or just go home? capt. frank h. carter, usn (ret.) tallahassee, fla.
clear objectives needed for military action - wsj
noauthor