Unwillingness for Absolute War...

[vitoprimo]

Whatever did happen to the original poster? Out making total war on his mami?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know where they came from, either, jjzelinski. I think it has something to do with having talk radio playing cribside, as their constant companion and babysitter... I don't think they ever had a chance to think straight...

Total war is a tough concept to sell against an amorphous enemy like "terrorism". It's a lot easier when it's other governments, particularly ones that are worthy opponents in such an endeavor, and ones who are behaving aggressively- attacking our friends, bombing our navy, conquering vast swaths of territory, enslaving millions- basic WW2 scenario...

And it's also a tough sell when you're not willing, as a government, to demand sacrifice from those of the greatest means. WW2 taxes were enormous, particularly for the wealthy. Rationing was in effect, and blatant displays of spending and wealth were considered unpatriotic. Contrast that with the messages and actions coming from the Bush Admin to understand how they're not really selling this war very well...

Because there's nothing to sell, no conventional battle to be won by force and number of arms, at all... the whole thing is just a method of attachment for parasitic providers of military hardware and related services... Imperialism in failure mode, feeding on the society it supposedly serves, rather than on the wealth of conquest...

 

[rahvin]

If the powel doctirne had been followed from the start Iraq would not be the situation it is now. Vietnam was always about a half-assed attempt at real reform. Had the real political reforms been actually attemped that were called for in the original doctrine Vietnam would have turned out much more like Korea. The difference is in the commitment, when you half ass it and aren't willing to commit fully you end up with a strong insurgency.

Put simply, had Bush followed the Powell doctrine and used overwhelming force, including occupying the country with .5million troops and searching and disarming every single household in Iraq to remove the weapons it would be a completely different country.

 

[judasmachine]

"total" war wipes out too much, and in the day of missing backpack nukes, it's simply too risky.

 

[eigen]

You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: 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.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

"The Enemy" simply isn't big enough to support such an arrangement. What are people going to do? Make stuff that's not needed, just to support a "war"?

 

[totalcommand]

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.

Maybe that's because we're not fighting a faulty ideology but a religiously-backed force. IMO, religion gives much more power to the people than Nazi ideology. That's not to say that Islam is bad; the terrorists are simply using it to further their goals. If Hitler or the Japanese had thought of that, WWII would have been different.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

"The Enemy" simply isn't big enough to support such an arrangement. What are people going to do? Make stuff that's not needed, just to support a "war"?

Maybe instead of buying junk from walmart we can buy warbonds.So we arent fighting the war on borrowed dollars.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

Come back with a definition of victory in Iraq...then we'll talk.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: KevinH

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

Come back with a definition of victory in Iraq...then we'll talk.

I think you're both actually preaching to the choir.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eigen
You guys have a misunderstanding of what is meant by Absolute war.

You guys certainly understand total war.i.e all available methods to win the war.

Absolute war is this.The total capacity of the nation is mobilized to win the war.All social,economic and political structures work toward victory.

An example would be WWII.Victory Gardens were planted.

Now we would do sometshing similar.

Gas would be rationed,draft enacted,less resources used, war bonds bought.

The whole country gets behind the effort.

"The Enemy" simply isn't big enough to support such an arrangement. What are people going to do? Make stuff that's not needed, just to support a "war"?

Maybe instead of buying junk from walmart we can buy warbonds.So we arent fighting the war on borrowed dollars.

WarBonds are still borrowed money, but that would be an improvement over the current method of borrowing. Though an improvement, still far from what you initially suggested.

 

[imported_Condor]

This was the issue in Vietnam as well.

 

[imported_Condor]

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.

No, the cowardly left would be trying to get us to meet Chinese demands in hopes it would help. Thousands of Jews sold their neighbors out in WWII in hope that the Germans would spare them. They kind of did. Those were the last to the chambers.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 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.

Since when does total mean less than?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.

 

[imported_Condor]

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.

Do you have some kind of background above Polisci 101, or are you just blowing smoke up everyones butt?

 

[imported_Ant]

You have to define who your enemy is before you can fight them.

By my reckoning there are at least three sources of insurgency in Iraq(this is only my opinion based on reports I've read).

1. The ousted government of Iraq and it's supporters including ex-Iraq army members. This group's aim appears to be to regain power.
I would guess this group is attacking occupation troops, Iraqi infrastructure and new security forces primarily.
They would likely be gaining recruits from Sunni families who have had family members killed or held without charge by occupation forces.
Normally in an occupation, this would be the only group behind an insurgency.

2. Islamic fundamentalists associated with Al Qeada from both inside and outside Iraq. This group's aim appears to be to strike back against the US in any way possible for perceived wrongs against their people. Likely the members of this group are recruited by an impression of US policy against the Arab and Palestinian people.
This group is fundamentally opposed to group 1 and would likely have wanted to remove Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Iraq. They are most likely to be responsible for the suicide bombings now predominant in Iraq.

3. The Shia people who are unhappy over civilian casualties and unkept promises of the occupation.
The objective of many of these people is to take power and turn the country into an Islamic state like Iran. They hold much of the power in the new government and in general wish to use political means to attain their objectives. Although currently it is only a minor and occasional insurgency given the scale of operations of the other two groups, it could potentially grow into a major problem if they have more reason to oppose occupation forces.

The question is how do you escalate war against these groups? Civilian casualties are likely to help all the insurgents gain fresh recruits.
Becoming to heavy handed against the Sunni population(as in Fallujah) is likely to give the third group a reason to use military instead of political means.

The situation as it stands is the only realistic way of dealing with it. Ideally, given an unlimited number of well trained troops, the insurgency could be quelled...however those troops are not available and poorly trained troops killing civilians can only escalate the conflict.
Giving the new Iraqi army time to train and take over security operations from occupation forces is the best way of dealing with the situation in my opinion. If sufficient recruits are not available to the new Iraqi security forces, the problem could continue for a very long time.

 

[techs]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

I loved that line!

 

[YoshiSato]

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.

You are way wrong!!! When the USS Cole was bomb no one cried for anything. We should have vaporized Yemen for that.

When the Pentagon and the World Trade Center was attack what kind of respond did we deliver, a very very weak one. We sent in some marines into Afaganistan

We need to follow the plan from Swordfish. You blowup an American airplane we destory one of your airports. You execute american citizens on our soil, we tatically nuke one of your cities.

But the ignornate masses don't have the stomachs for that type of response. But as the so called most powerful nation in the world we better start acting like it.

Rome never put up with this crap.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: 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.

You are in a dream world. Look at the size of China. They have never been weak.

The size of China has nothing to do with their ability to stand against us in a naval war.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Condor

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.

Do you have some kind of background above Polisci 101, or are you just blowing smoke up everyones butt?

Yes, I do have a background in it beyond polisci 101. It's a screwy concept to understand, but despite what you want to assume, you do not need to use all of your weapons or even win the battle to be considered a total war.

 

[wchou]

all war are planned, they are to cause many to die for no one good reason. it's a way to reduce population and to strike fear into many who are weak minded, and most vulnerable. life is like a survival of the fittest, not the nicest that will triump in the end.
war is wrong no matter how you look at it yet many of us are conditioned to do things we would not do in a normal circumstance without any outside influence. man are like a herd, they do what others do and go mad together. it's insanity, it's a world gone out of control.

 

[HardWarrior]

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.

There's one problem with this reasoning. There won't be a "total war." For all the talk in DC about foreign leaders being "Madmen!!!" and such. No one wants to ruin another country entirely, or be responsible for several millions casualties. Behavior like this would not only be bad for business, but the initiator of such an event would find itself isolated diplomatically and economically, very quickly.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: 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.

By definition it does. "Total" meaning the commitment of all resources necessary to utterly destroy the enemy.