Yes, but valuearb makes a good point— it is not always true that a bad peace is better than a good war. There are moments when timely, preemptive military intervention can avoid a more destructive conflict. (The problem is, of course, that those moments are often only obvious to us in historical retrospect.)
Comments
You mean a bad peace like 1939?
I'm thinking more like the bad peace of 1963, 1979, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2011 (again), need I go on?
Yes, but valuearb makes a good point— it is not always true that a bad peace is better than a good war. There are moments when timely, preemptive military intervention can avoid a more destructive conflict. (The problem is, of course, that those moments are often only obvious to us in historical retrospect.)