Unwillingness for Absolute War...

[eigen]

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

 

[Todd33]

There is a strong case against "war on the cheap", Imperial Hubris made the point.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

total war? including nukes?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

total war? including nukes?

A total war does not require the use of nukes.

 

[techs]

A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Taggart

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

It depends on the situation. If China shot cruise missiles deliberately at our navy tomorrow and killed a bunch of sailors, I think Americans would support declaring war and engaging in 'total' war.

I really doubt such a scenario would go that far.

Our navy would just start blowing Chinese navy ships out of the water until they want to start talking.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: eigen

The american public would not being willing at this point to have the nation engage in absolute war.

Unfortunately absolute war is a great way to ensure you don't engage in conflict haphazardly and that when you do you are playing to win.

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.

Didn't we do this when we toppled Saddam? Bombs fell left and right.

The only way now to "completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power" would be to kill all the remaining Iraqis it seems.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.

Didn't we do this when we toppled Saddam? Bombs fell left and right.

The only way now to "completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power" would be to kill all the remaining Iraqis it seems.

In an extraordinarily half-assed manner, yes.

 

[Moonbeam]

TOTAL WAR makes me get so excited.

 

[Genx87]

I have pondered this as well. Ever since WWII our country has tried to increase our effectiveness of conventional weapons to limit the loss of civilian life. Long gone are the days of dropping thousands of tons of napalm on a civilian population center with the intent to demoralize the population into giving up.

In Korea and Vietnam we saw the consequences of a civilian population able to continue the fight due to not being the main target of our military.

I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistence from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TOTAL WAR makes me get so excited.

You are always EXCITED

 

[EagleKeeper]

Total war will only work if you are willing to demonstrate that you will do everything needed to destroy the opposition.

Providing optional scenarios (if/then/else) to the opponent will not work, because it does not show a total committment to the conflict.

Back pedaling, waffling, allowing other interested/biased parties to attempt any influence on the execution of the conflict prevents/impedes the proper execution of the conflict to a successful conclusion.

 

[Thump553]

Looks like the right is slipping into the Vietnam War syndrome again-blaming the failure to "win" an unwinnable war upon a loss of faith at home. Vietnam was unwinnable short of turning the country into a sea of glass. Iraq is worse because we are actually strengthening the radical/terrorist cause throughout the Muslim world through this invasion.

In Iraq we are viewed as an invading and occupying force-bumping up the body count won't do a darn bit of good.

Sometimes our political leadership gets us into stupid wars for stupid reasons. It's time to face up to that.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have pondered this as well. Ever since WWII our country has tried to increase our effectiveness of conventional weapons to limit the loss of civilian life. Long gone are the days of dropping thousands of tons of napalm on a civilian population center with the intent to demoralize the population into giving up.

In Korea and Vietnam we saw the consequences of a civilian population able to continue the fight due to not being the main target of our military.

I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistence from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.

You need to brush up on your history . . . in Korea AND Vietnam (the good guys . . . that's us) repeatedly fire bombed and carpet bombed the civilian population.

Many of the advocates of Bush War 2003-2??? appear lack a basic understanding of why we are there, what it means to "win", and what it takes to "win." It's a shame more of the voting population (and their elected representatives) bought the smoke and mirrors show during the Fall of 2002 into Spring 2003.

The WWII analogy is not going to save Bush's War. Nobody buys that argument. You cannot make an unpopular war . . . popular by saying it's "just like the Great War" or the even more egregious "it's just like the Revolutionary War." You certainly cannot make a bad strategy (followed up with terrible tactics) successful by wishful thinking.

If the Japanese or Germans had money and munitions, who knows how long they would have "resisted."

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistence from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Bomb the hell out of them? But there would be nobody left to build "the democracy". What if such act would cause total USA isolation or worse yet attack on US installations by the rest of the world. There isn't so much love for the US around the world as it is, carpet bombing wouldn't improve that situation by one bit

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: techs
A total war does not require the use of nukes
I must not understand the meaning of the word "total" then.

You're goal is to completely elimate a country's ability to wage a war and, ultimately, remove that group for power. You can use whatever means necessary, but that does not mean you have to use them. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, by definition, were total wars. Our goals weren't simply to stop the North, but to remove them from power. Did we use nukes in either war? No, but our goals were still the same. A lot of people have issues with the term total war, because most think "total" requires you to use everything you have, when it doesn't.

Ok, let me get this straight. Total war is not total war? Oh I get it. Not.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Genx87
not being the main target of our military.

I wonder if we carpet bombed all of Iraq and just pounded the civilian populations if we would see the same amount of resistance from these terrorists. It could very well be the people including the ones recruited by the terrorists wouldnt have the stomach or heart to continue the fight.

Clearly the populations of Japan and Germany were willing to give up by the time we got done with them. Both had a very fanatical following that is very close to what we see today. And there wasnt a prolonged resistence and attempts to derail the process of rebuilding the country and govt.

That's insane. You?re talking about carpet bombing a country that we're trying to "liberate?" >>>>>>>>WTF<<<<<<<<

EDIT:

Where the hell do you people come from and how did you take control of this country? Despite my shock at having read your post (which I'm sure was submitted in a *strictly* hypothetical sense) it's far from the first time that I've encountered this sentiment. We went there because some people were either tricked or coerced into accepting the retarded notion that Iraq (IRAQ of all places, I mean WTF?) posed a significant threat to our national security. AT LEAST HALF THE COUNTRY knew this was bullsh1t and yet the neo-nationalists (I just invented that term; you're welcome ) pulled out the patriotism whip and made the LOGICAL dissenters keep their pvssy mouths shut.

We then "shocked and awed" the world with our brazen stupidity by rolling through hundreds of miles of battle scarred landscape, impoverished villages and dilapidated cities on search for WMD's that we were just CERTAIN to find. After kicking the sh1t out of crippled little Iraq again in search of them, guess what; WE CAN'T FIND A TRACE of the huge arsenal that they'd supposedly been building up for the last 12 years. "...but the intelligence said!" they told us. In order to commence the invasion we kicked out weapons inspectors WHO EXPLICITLY TOLD US they'd not yet found *****a bit of evidence**** to suggest there was an NBC stockpile or even a weapons program to support the effort to eventually obtain them.

OOPS! Guess it's time to save face! "Ok ok, American public, what I REALLY meant to say was that we've just GOT to liberate those poor Iraqi's from... uhh.... themselves.... yeah!" Are you kidding me? Are we really that dumb? We've made ourselves into an absurd caricature of our own society. Black is now, white. Up is now down. Excuses for issues of global significance and national security can be made retroactive right in front of our faces.

Now, these same numb nuts who feed of this psychotropic trail of bread crumbs claim those who are FINALLY starting to cry fowl loud enough for the nation to hear "don't have the stomach for war." I don't even have words to describe the sheer absurdity of that sentiment. Yeah, what the hell was I thinking?! What better way to APPOLOGIZE to a country we've invaded under ADMITEDLY FALSE PRETENSES then to CARPET BOMB IT!

 

[Starbuck1975]

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

It worked against Germany and Japan...Hitler, and the Emperor of Japan, were fairly popular among their respective populations.

I think you meant to say pre-emptive wars don't work for such a scenario.

 

[Rainsford]

Conflict is going to be more and more "fight the terrorists" kind of thing, the days of large power vs large power seem to be over, at least for the time being. Quite simply, that kind of conflict requires us to engage in smart fighting that is almost as much law enforcement and intelligence work as it is "war". Engaging in total war of the variety Genx suggests isn't a good idea, because unlike in past conflicts, the number of enemies and enemy supporters we are fighting is smaller.

There are probably a rather large number of insurgents in Iraq, but they don't approach anything near the numbers we faced in past conflicts, and they don't have the same level of public support. In the past, we went to war with Germany or Japan or whoever. The entire country, for the most part, was working to beat us, so we had to respond in kind. That's not the way it is any more, engaging in unrestricted war against the entire country of Iraq would have made us far more enemies than we have now, and it would have been considered a war crime by many (rightly so IMHO). Would it be effective at stopping the insurgency? Maybe, but given the new type of conflict we are fighting, it is an option that we simply can't use. We really would be the bad guys at that point, good motives only make up for bad actions to a point, and we would be way beyond that.

Edit: I'm not saying we shouldn't be playing to win, but what some people are talking about is just taking it too far.

 

[maddogchen]

This is the first time I've heard of absolute war. So I had to look it up. I think didn't Sherman use Total war in the march to Atlanta?

The concept of absolute war (or "real war") was developed by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz as a philosophical construct, the war in which every aspect of society was bent towards the conflict. Clausewitz held that this was impossible, as war was always subject to some political constraints.

The terms absolute war and total war, are often confused, but theorists differentiate:

* "Absolute war describes the deployment of all of a society's resources and citizens into working for the war machine. Total war, on the other hand, describes the absence of any restraint in warfare. Moral and political responsibility becomes problematic for proponents of both absolute and total war, for they have to justify the incorporation of civilians who do not work for the war effort as well as the infirm, children, and the handicapped and wounded who cannot fight."(1)
* Christopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College, describes the difference in this way: "It is also important to note that Clausewitz's concept of absolute war is quite distinct from the later concept of 'total war.' Total war was a prescription for the actual waging of war typified by the ideas of General Erich von Ludendorff, who actually assumed control of the German war effort during World War One. Total war in this sense involved the total subordination of politics to the war effort?an idea Clausewitz emphatically rejected?and the assumption that total victory or total defeat were the only options. Total war involved no suspension of the effects of time and space, as did Clausewitz's concept of the absolute"(2)

Text

Weird.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Absolute war scenario doesn't work for "overthrow the dictator, build democracy" kind of war, cause it creates lifetime enemies.

It worked against Germany and Japan...Hitler, and the Emperor of Japan, were fairly popular among their respective populations.

I think you meant to say pre-emptive wars don't work for such a scenario.

It only worked because 10+ mln Soviet Army along with US, British(don't know exact numbers) occupied entire Germany, they had no place to build or by weapons, Soviets didn't plan to build democracy, quite the opposite. Many Germans that survived 6 years of war thought it was their punishment for genocide and previous occupation of European countries by Nazi Germany. Actually germany did have a big anti-Soviet movement in 50s, but it was put down by brutal use of force. Mostly I think the germany and japan didn't fight further because they had no access to weapons. Also things were not as widely publicized as now

 

[Moonbeam]

I got the nuc nuc nuc cle rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr blues.