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

No. When one nation even attempts to "limit" how far they are willing to go to win, they invariably signal to the adversary how easy it will be to defeat them.

I've often asked the rhetorical question: Why does every Terrorist and tin-horned Tyrant want to pick a fight with the only superpower that has nuclear weapons in anger?

War is a battle between human wills. If you're not as willing to go further than your enemy, then you have already lost before the first shot is fired...and every drop of national blood and every penny of national treasure you ARE willing to devote is already wasted the moment you deploy it.

as far as im concerned, when politicians limit a war or limit the abilities of its military force against a enemy thus tieing the hands of the war fighter, it effects not only the outcome but also effects moral as a war fighter. a big example of this is Iraq. it is not an effective strategy. if we are sent to war, we should be granted every means and and whatever it takes to win it.

No. Must have a declaration of war by congress and the support of the American people with a clearly defined mission. Must involve our national security not some other nation's.

No.
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
~William Tecumseh Sherman

Never again! it just drags things out. I speak of all limitations, not just those on the quantity of forces mobilized. The past several conflicts should be considered warnings from history. Once an enemy rears its head, take it off and keep working on the rest of the body until there is no more.

Not when the enemy is engaged in total war via guerilla war tactics. We tend to lose limited wars. But, I usually assume that our leadership wants to win. Might be a wrong assumption.

A limited war can be effective provided all the leadership is working towards defeating the enemy, when you analyze past non political wars they were all limited wars. Our modern conflicts are guerrilla wars which are hard to fight because our leadership has poor experience fighting guerrilla warfare, this is because all the Vietnam Veteran in leadership retired or passed away and the young guys were not willing to see the facts. Read the book "Why we lost" A high-ranking general’s gripping insider account of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how it all went wrong.Over a thirty-five-year career, Daniel Bolger rose through the army infantry.

Any war can and will have casualties limited war may be able to defeat a nations enemies however each war is different and bring with it different challenges geography being one of them, and these challenges ultimately determine how we would fight.

No!

No, if we get into a war time situation, it should be to win, period. VietNam we fought the war from a defensive posture. We won battles but lost the war. You have to take the battles to the enemy. I was in on the move into Cambodia, then we stopped. We set the VC back 6 months. They regrouped and came back as strong as ever. When you have you enemy retreating you finish the job. The only thing a limited war gets you in more of you soldiers killed with no results. You can say the same thing happened in Iraq. I was in BIAP, we set the enemy back 6 months and they came back stronger than ever. I question where we have the people at the highest level that knows how to fight and win a war. I was in the military for 40 years and I believe that I know what I am talking about.