"Is there a Place for ‘Total War’ in the Modern World? " Topic

"The way America has waged war in the post-9/11 era is controversial. Conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere evolved into counterinsurgency missions. These efforts are "population-centric", focused on winning locals to the coalition side. The Abu Ghraib prison abuses and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA's Enhanced Interrogation Program, among other controversies, revealed U.S. actions contrary to such efforts. Despite the focus on COIN and civil affairs operations over the last 15 years of war, there remains disagreement as to how America should be fighting these wars. Critics of the Petraeus-Nagl Doctrine argue that America would be better suited fighting enemies such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS much as they fight against America — with "Total War." Unable to rule out the possibility of fighting future population-centric wars, America must resolve this debate and discard Total War techniques, such as torture, and to respect human rights — both because it is the more effective way to wage modern war and because the military should demonstrate American values abroad…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good article, especially his conclusions.

First, little evidence exists to support the idea that a military unconstrained by rules of engagement or ethics will fight more effectively in today's environment. Returning to the Civil War and WWII paradigm, destroying the production capacity of an insurgency usually proves insufficient given their limited logistical needs. Destroying an insurgency's armed forces through attrition does not work. As long as there is a population and an appealing cause, there will be more insurgents.

True.

The second error is that even if Total War works at the tactical and operational level – an uncertain claim – Americans will not support inhumane methods in a war of choice.

Also true. We'll never "win" by being worse than those we're fighting – whether we're actually worse or only perceived to be so.

"Is there a Place for ‘Total War' in the Modern World? " … only once if you do it right …

'Total War' in the ME isn't feasible or guaranteed to work even if we put morality and conscience aside and give the military free reign to do "whatever it takes" because:

1. The concept of nation states with clear borders is becoming increasingly blurred in the ME. Iraq's defeat in 2003 and the subsequent US occupation only destabilzied the country and invited insurgents from all over the region to Iraq because it had become a target-rich environment in American servicemen. Now Iraq and its neighbor Syria don't even qualify as countries or nation-states in the traditional sense of these words;

2. Regarding civilians as acceptable collateral damage will only further fuel hatred toward America, as if we're not despised enough already. Sons and daughters of parents killed will be radicalized and seek vengeance when they grow up, unless we adopt the age old policy of "when you kill someone, you also kill the offsprings so they won't seek revenge on you";

3. While 'Total War' worked most recently in WWII because of the rebuilding programs that came after (Marshall Plan), such nation-building efforts have proven to be much less effective than before in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is due to the pre-existing religious and cultural schisms in the ME and the lack of a 'unified' population that can be subdued or won over;

4. Such 'Total Wars' will also have to be "wars without end" because our enemies have longer patience than we do and don't mind trading 10 or more of their lives for one of ours. There's a Chinese saying that one can move a mountain with a spoon based on Confucius' quote that: "The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones." It may take many lifetimes and the combined efforts of many people, but it can be done. This is anathema to our way of thinking.

The only place for Total War is the Plains of Megiddo.

Yes, ANY civilian casualties in a counter-insurgency equals mission failure. Doesn't matter how many enemy fighters you take out or weapons caches you find.

Kill the village teacher or one of the kids and you've just turned all the fence-sitters against you.

The utility of Total War is inversely related to the military strength of the nation contemplating using it. Tiny countries and non-state actors can hope to practice it with some hope for success. Thermonuclear-weapon-armed super-powers will gain nothing from such a complete mobilization of the national resources to win a war because there is no winner in a thermonuclear exchange (except possibly cockroaches or other similarly hardy organisms). Total War could be nicely nestled between extinction and divergent evolution in the natural history of the Earth and probably will be if we don't smarten up as a species pretty soon.
Rod Robertson

The only place for Total War is the Plains of Megiddo.

Oh … let's hope not …

Yes, ANY civilian casualties in a counter-insurgency equals mission failure. Doesn't matter how many enemy fighters you take out or weapons caches you find.

Kill the village teacher or one of the kids and you've just turned all the fence-sitters against you.

And that is why COIN is/can be very risky. Read Mao and Che'. That scenario is right out of their playbooks, so to speak. And the insurgent hides among the populus. "Swim among the fishes" … Like all the guerilla movements even during WWII in both theaters. French, Italian, the PI, etc. … As far as a Nuc exchange … very unlikely. If at all one of the plethora of islamic fanatical radicalized groups, like Deash, AQ, etc., would be my choice for most likely to use a Nuc if they can get it. Also, why do you think some are fighting to stop the Persians from getting Nuclear power ? Their rethoric about Israel, the US, etc. certainly sounds like they'd use Nucs. And don't let any one doubt, if UBL and AQ could have got hold of a Nuc, that they would not have used it … With WMDs, as I have said before, it's a 0 – Sum game. Once you know for sure it's to late.

Thermonuclear-weapon-armed super-powers will gain nothing from such a complete mobilization of the national resources to win a war because there is no winner in a thermonuclear exchange (except possibly cockroaches or other similarly hardy organisms).

"Total War" may, but does not necessarily entail resorting to nukes, unless all other options have been exhausted and it's become a do-or-die "if we're going down, we're taking you with me" type of situation (i.e. mutual destruction).

"Total War" means removing all restrictions on targeting civilians, like the German blitz in London and US fire-bombing of Japan in WWII to create terror and demoralize the populace (in the hopes of inciting them in an uprising against their government).

But I agree with you that only nations that are increasingly desperate (like Germany in 1943) feel the need for "Total War" without restriction.

Which begs the question, are our aims in the ME worth the costs and repercussions of going to "Total War" by treating civilian non-combatants as legitimate targets? Probably not.

Is this a question you REALLY want answered???

In the current situation with Daesh , I don't get why there is not the option to 'turn the phones off' ..ie; black out the mobile-phone networks that they use to communicate with , and upload their propaganda vids…and for that matter detonate IEDs.

Sure a lot of civilians will be blacked out also ..but if it is possible to remove all Daesh comms, and destroy them piecemeal , then they can turn the 'phones back on.

?Maybe a big geosynchronous satellite over this part of the world pumping out EMP on mobile phone/tv/radio freqs would do the trick .. it would also tell this part of the world … "we can do this ". (or…'if you can't be trusted with this level of technology ..we will take it off you … your choice")

Is this even possible ? or is this a bit sci-fi. ?

Next ..stop the money ! , stop the flow of arms and ammo !

I don't believe torture or nukes are necessary here, not until we have tried genuine efforts at social/ political/ economic reform. So far efforts here have been constrained by BS political correctness … that has been 'the hand tied behind the back' of coalition forces so far.
The Abu Grahib fiasco and civilian casualty incidents (esp. wedding and funeral parties) are Coalition 'own goals' that you just cannot keep repeating, and expect to win.

..otherwise it is the "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach, which has already been shown… doesn't work.