Total war versus what we have today.

[slipknot]

Many times I've seen the comparison of the WWII era approach to war to today's, often citing the fact that back then we managed far morein 4 years  than we've managed in 5 today.

The execution of the total war was the difference, I believe. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the Japanese were assured, through action, that any continuation of hostilities, would end in their total obliteration. The Germans were left with much the same reality. Before we could rebuild, modernize and impose our value systems, we made sure that the enemy was broken.

Today, we practice a more selective war, striving for minimal damage to achieve a military objective. Minimal damage equates to minimal cost. The end result, the enemy is not backed up against the wall enough to completely lose faith in their goal. Remember, the Japanese were no less fanatical than some of our current adversaries. No less ready to die for their cause.

Or is there more to it?

[2bighorn]

Or is there more to it?

Yes

[lasersailor184]

No, there really isn't that much more to it in my opinion.

"If you're not willing to wage total war, you shouldn't wage any war at all."  


Basically, until you are willing to create the total destruction of your enemy to win, you'd best not get into the fight at all.

For example, in WW2 America was willing to not only fight the german and japanese army to theirs or our destruction, but we would hold the citizens of the country just as responsible.  So not only did we fight them, but we also firebombed many cities.  Not to mention the absolute annihilation of two japanese cities.

But take a look at Korea, Vietnam and all the wars since then.  We haven't really beat a single enemy.  Sure, we might have won a few narrow and shortsighted goals, but the end results has always been bad.  Especially from vietnam on, we've been fighting under such restrictive rules of war that nothing was to be gained but a virtual stalemate.  


Take a look even at recruitment and drafts in WW2 and today.  Ignoring that Roosevelt was a war-time fascist, the American people felt that it was the right thing to do to get involved in the war.  Especially after a major military attack.  

However, take a look at the Vietnam era, and even today.  Despite a small attack, both in Vietnam and Today, Americans didn't have the drive to go to war.  And if they don't have the drive to go to war, they won't have the drive to wish to see the destruction of the enemy, and they especially won't have the understanding that American troops will die in a war.

[2bighorn]

Basically, until you are willing to create the total destruction of your enemy to win, you'd best not get into the fight at all.

I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.

[evenhaim]

I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.

yep

[slipknot]

I'm pretty sure majority of population, military and leadership wants total destruction of our current enemies.

Be that as it may, it's not as easy for that population, military and leadership to purchase that total destruction at the price of high civilian and infrastructural casualities--which is what you'll need in order to convince the local population that it's either gonna be our will that they except, or death...

In short, instead of winning hearts and minds, you terrify them into submission. After that's done, and the resistance dries up from lack of support, you can go about rebuilding and nurturing.

[VonMessa]

Horse crap.

They don't let the troops fight like it.


Every generation since the baby boomers has been spoon fed the crock of trash that because you are an American you deserve this and are entitled to that.

They forgot to leave the part in that says you have to earn your freedoms.

[Yeager]

Total war?  Im not so sure it was necessary.  Im pretty sure OBL was expecting a Clinton style middle of the night cruise missle attack on empty training camps in response to 9/11/2001. 

The fact that Afganistan was attacked and had a parliment elected and the fact that 160,000 US Soldiers entered into Iraq to wage a crusade (face it, thats what happened) and had a Iraqi governement get elected never even entered into the minds of the terror attackers as a possibility, let alone a reality. 

Now it looks like Afganistan will get the bulk of US attention since Iraq has calmed down so much, and the Iraqi security forces are finally becoming semi-pro enough to look after themselves. 

Time to get to work on those tribal lands, and see how far we can entertain our Pakistani partners to cooperate with instead of subterfuging against us.

[2bighorn]

Be that as it may, it's not as easy for that population, military and leadership to purchase that total destruction at the price of high civilian and infrastructural casualities--which is what you'll need in order to convince the local population that it's either gonna be our will that they except, or death...

In short, instead of winning hearts and minds, you terrify them into submission. After that's done, and the resistance dries up from lack of support, you can go about rebuilding and nurturing.

Well, that's the problem. Our No 1 enemy is not confined to one country. It's a fast moving small target. The big classic military is just not cut to fight that kind of enemy.

Instead of bombing third world countries into submission, we could and should fight the real enemies, not artificial or low priority ones.

Basically it comes down to "choosing your enemy" and "setting priorities" and less with willingness of our people to wage the war.

 

[Hangtime]

Low Intensity conflicts are exceedingly profitable for the corporate entities that own our government.

So, that's the way we fight.

From our adversaries perspective.. When you play cards with a guy that never plays his Ace, after awhile, you ignore the possibility of him ever actually using it. In their eyes we're paper tigers.

We should have opened hostilities with Tehran using overwhelming force on Nov 5th 1979... the day after the Hostages were taken.

Hang

[VonMessa]

Well, that's the problem. Our No 1 enemy is not confined to one country. It's a fast moving small target. The big classic military is just not cut to fight that kind of enemy.

Instead of bombing third world countries into submission, we could and should fight the real enemies, not artificial or low priority ones.

Basically it comes down to "choosing your enemy" and "setting priorities" and less with willingness of our people to wage the war.

 

Again, horse manure.

Who ARE the real enemies?  You can't tell.  I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity.  IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.

Hang, you hit the nail on the head.

[slipknot]

I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity.  IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.

isn't what you described right there just another way of saying Total War, though?

Less discrimination, less sympathy, less politically correct combat in favor of across the board engagement to put the terror into their hearts.

Not sure what you were referring to as horse crap earlier, other than why our soldiers are forced to limit the scope of their work.

[VonMessa]

Don't worry Slip,  I am in agreement with you.  Bomb them into the stone age.

[Rino]

     That wouldn't be a long trip from where they are now 

[2bighorn]

Who ARE the real enemies?  You can't tell.
I bet you that if we turned the place into a huge kitty litter box, the natives would be less likely to keep their doors open for, OR tolerate nearly as much insurgent activity.  IED's would be less common if the general populace had a keener eye and was aware of the consequences for not keeping an eye on these things and reporting them.

Huh? Who's coming over here and blowing things up and killing innocent people? Who's responsible? Who was hiding in Sudan, Afghanistan and now allegedly in Pakistan? Do you think if we vaporized those three, that terrorist scumbags would just automagically vanish? What about all others? Yeah right, they're all busy assembling IEDs in Iraq. Get real.

With yearly supplemental budget of 170 billions in average (what we spend now for Iraq and Afghanistan), we could hunt and capture most of those scumbags long ago.

But no, we rather bomb and rebuild Iraq for who knows what reason and we don't even get cheap oil out of it. Now that's horse manure.