Can "Limited War" be an effective strategy in defeating a nation's enemies?

No, we have lost, Korea, Vietnam.Sololia, Iraq and Afganistan with Limited war. We need to let the military loose and let them Kill or capture all the enemy and take the funds from the captured Army to pay for it Kill and keep killing till there are no more swearing to kill us. Our pantywaste politicians will keep interfearing until we have no country left.

Limited War is an attempt to fight war on the cheap. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, it just prolongs a war and ends up making it more expensive and does nothing to successfully end the war.

Limited war is just a boondoggle to make more money for the arms suppliers. If you have a problem that only military action can solve, use it fast, hard and unreservedly. Get the job done then get the hell out.
If the problem does not absolutely require military action, then don't use it at all. This fannying about, fighting, then giving the property back just costs money and lives. If you can't decide, then leave the weapon racked.

I will answer with a question. How has it worked since WW-II?

Nope. Look at Sgermans march to the sea, and the atomic bombs that were dropped in Japan. It is only after the foe is so demoralized and destroyed that they realize, they CAN'T win, and they give up. If we hit them, and then help them to their feet and give them a glass of water, time to feel better, and a hug, before we hit them again, the war will never end. War is ugly, but the more brutal and violent on the front end, the quicker it will be over.

In 2012 I was working at ISAF HQ in Kabul. I was fortunate enough to be able to listen in on the briefings of the previous nights operations. One in particular stood out in my mind, not because it was different than the others, but because they were all similar.

12 SF teams were sent out the previous night. 2 Afghan teams (with US radio and medical team members), 1 Polish team, and the remainder US and UK. They had a list of 8 named bad guys to pick up. Results the following morning, 7 bad guys picked up or killed, 80 bad guy supporters killed, wounded or captured, one friendly Afghan killed, and 1 coalition guy wounded.

That's pretty good math, and we did that about 4 times a week for the time I was there.

Daesh apocalyptic writings say that there will be a final battle at a town in northern Syria. It's one of the few towns they took that has no strategic location and no military significance. They expect us to attack them there, and they expect to lose all but 5,000 of their fighters, but then Jesus, who has converted to Islam comes riding to the rescue and kills us.

If I had my way, I'd attack that town now, and fortify the hell out of it like Bagram. Then I'd invite Daesh to come and take it back. And I'd send out the same teams with the same lists of bad guys to pick up. And I'd make sure Daesh knew that we knew this is what they wanted, and we were ready to settle the whole thing. And I'd be sure and laugh at them.

Why? Because while "Limited War" is an abomination, you cannot fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. Also egotistical bastards (like Daesh) hate being laughed at and the successes we would have would hurt their recruitment efforts.

No. It takes longer and requires more will, discipline, attention, cost, lives, etc. It's a long way to lose.

GySgt Charles O'Connell Yes, if you want limited victory.

Your question requires a bit of clarification of terms, because the objective of military force isn't necessarily to "defeat" adversaries, but to achieve political goals established by the government. Sometimes defeat of the enemy is necessary, sometimes it is not. As an example, during the War of 1812, the United States certainly did not defeat Great Britain, but we certainly achieved our political objectives.

Now, can limited war achieve political objectives. In U.S. military history, that was certainly the case in the Indian Wars, the Philippine Insurrection, Grenada, Panama, and the First Gulf War. It worked for the British in a whole mess of colonial wars in Africa, the Malay Contingency, and the Falklands.

The key is understanding what, politically, the nation is trying to achieve, and the degree of effort required to obtain it. To quote Clausewitz, “No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
The most recent Israeli actions in Gaza are an excellent example of this: They did not seek the overthrow of Hamas, or to re-establish Israeli control of the territory. They merely sought to reduce, for a period of time, Hamas' ability to attack Israeli to a tolerable level. Mowing the grass, so to speak. They know they'll have to do it again at some point.

The problem often comes when the effort required exceeds initial expectations. Often this is because, while the war may be limited for one side, it may be total, a war for survival, on the other. Vietnam was an excellent example of this. It was a limited war for the United States, but a total war for North Vietnam. A similar dynamic is in place with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Also critical in both cases is that our opponents are receiving sanctuary and support from outside.)

Clauswitz also speaks to this problem, when he asks "But what constitutes defeat? The conquest of his whole territory is not always necessary, and total occupation of his territory may not be enough." War, limited or total, means imposing your will on the enemy. Which, to make matters messy, means he's not "defeated" until he accepts you imposing your political objectives. If he refuses to submit, you have to be willing to continue paying costs, in blood and treasure, to keep your desired conditions in place.

Which means you have to decide how much you're willing to pay for the object you're trying to achieve. At some point, you may run up against the credit card limit, so to speak.

Define "limited war"