"Total war 21st century style" Topic

If it never gets to the point of massive armies, what could still define "total war"?

I would define it as total war when the other side is no longer merely striking with individuals and small groups here or there: rather, actual combat units strike then disperse, not just here or there, but over a wide, even a worldwide map. So organized through instant communication that orders are received and executed in a matter of minutes.

Response times so far have been lamentably slow, even non existent. If the enemy ramped up the number of attacks even a little bit more, such that they are occurring several per day, I don't see current methods of dealing with them being capable of any meaningful resistance. Chaos would ensue. Governments would collapse. The enemy would draw ever closer to achieving victory by "a thousand cuts".

Since IS has never demonstrated such a capability (they surely would attack more if they had the means), it seems obvious to me that in order to avoid the above scenario of "total war", and thus defeat, the West must do one of two things: withdraw entirely and purge their homelands of all possible insurgent elements, ruthlessly and thoroughly. Or, muster the armies sufficient to "go in" and thoroughly and ruthlessly occupy the "breeding grounds" of radicalism. Those areas are obvious. If the radicals melt away and resurface elsewhere, "we" hit those hot spots.

We may never entirely eliminate the cancer of radicalism turned to violence. But there would be no chance of it ever becoming a global threat, not even a regional threat, if we don't allow it….

Or, perhaps people would get angry, throw the appeasers out of power, and get on with the program of defeating a small band of stone-age savages who are having a far greater impact on world events than they should, since no one is seriously going after them.

The Axis Powers, which were far more numerous and powerful, were defeated completely in short order by the Allies in WWII.

We just need leaders with the will and backbone to get it done, and then to do what it takes to win.

The two strategies are not mutually exclusive, and in my opinion, both should be pursued in tandem.

Response times so far have been lamentably slow, even non existent. If the enemy ramped up the number of attacks even a little bit more, such that they are occurring several per day, I don't see current methods of dealing with them being capable of any meaningful resistance. Chaos would ensue. Governments would collapse. The enemy would draw ever closer to achieving victory by "a thousand cuts".

This is exactly IS's goal. AlArabia news reported recently that IS's main strategist has rewritten the book on terror. They are no longer asking people to travel to the ME to join them and get training. They are no longer interested in managing cells of agents in foreign lands. They are now asking average people to attack the West in ones and twos with whatever weapons, tools and skills they have at hand. Cuts down on time between being turned to extremism and carrying out attacks. Cuts down on the opportunity for intelligence services and police to detect upcoming attacks. Thus we have people run down by a truck, attacked with knives and axes, etc. The future of terrorism is here. And people (Americans, at least) are stupid enough to believe that outlawing firearms will stop terrorist attacks.

IS doesn't need "total war" in the traditional sense.

All they need to do is inspire a few random attacks by total losers that kill far fewer people than a typical week of home-grown run-of-the mill violence (we Americans kill about 300 fellow citizens each week in bar room brawls, domestic violence, drug deals, etc.).

For that small investment in social media-inspired attacks by just a few idiots IS can get about HALF of American voters to freak out, become hysterical, and literally vote away their own freedoms and reject our American values through our political process.

IS doesn't need an army of occupation to destroy our freedoms. About half of us are so easily terrorized that, like sheep running before a small dog, we're willing to destroy them ourselves.

Each of us just needs to decide if we're easily spooked sheep willing to surrender to fear or lions willing to fight and even die in defense of our ideals.

Total War used to be defined by the extent to which a state was invested in prosecuting a war. The mobilization of all instruments of the state and private enterprise including military, merchant marine, intelligence, law enforcement, civilian labour, corporate power, financial institutions, education and media delineated that a nation was at total war. The willingness to attack all of these branches within an enemy state rather than limiting attacks to purely military targets was also a reciprocal indication of total war.

Since non-state actors cannot marshal all of these resources it is arguable that terrorist organizations cannot wage total war. States however can wage total war on terrorist organizations but the question must be asked is this a reasonable response to a lower level threat than interstate conventional war or thermonuclear war? If a state faces terrorism and conventional/nuclear adversaries is it wise to divert too many resources to a low level threat and potentially undermine their ability to respond to more serious threats?

Terrorism is frightening but it is not a real threat to the survival of a state usually. 33,000 Americans die per year from gun related injuries. That's more people than all the victims of ISIL of all nationalities per year. Likewise 33,000 Americans die from automobile accidents and 2.25 million are injured per year. From 2004-2013 only 80 Americans died from terrorism and of those only 36 died on American soil. Thus some proportionality in response seems warranted. Total War vs. terrorism seems a bit hyperbolic given the low level of threat it has presented to date.

PDF link

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

It has been argued in the past that America lost the war in Vietnam because of the press and media.

Perhaps a similar situation could exist here? By focussing on a few incidents of terrorism it gets more attention than it deserves – and that leads yto it being more effective. Perhaps if every act of terrorism was given a small paragraph on the local news instead of front page coverage over several days or months it would die. The terrorists live for the publicity.

Those figures quoted by Rod – Give everyone (not just American – British, French, German, Turkish) killed by other means the same importance as those killed by terrorism!

"Total war" means getting the civilians onboard with fully supporting the military.

During WW2, the US essentially stopped all non-military commercial production, with the exception of food, and Food was rationed. No new cars, every car factory was making trucks or tanks for the Army. No new clothes, all the fabric was going to the military. If you wanted something other than what was in your ration book, you needed to grow/make it yourself.

"Total war" also means that all factories supporting the war effort are valid military targets.

See also "unrestricted submarine warfare"

The Daesh death cult is trying to spark off a religious war.

What they want to achieve is create as much bad blood between people as possible, so that western governments enact increasingly radical policies that will increase the sense of open hostility in muslims, who will join the Daesh cause resulting in more terrorist attacks, leading to more drastic measures, that further alienate the population and spark off rioting, civil conflict, deportation, all of which can be used by Daesh to prove that the West is an abomination that is trying to destroy Islam and at some point this will degenerate into a full blown war which will spark the apocalypse where god will destroy all infidels. (Or they are all exterminated and end up in paradise anyway)

Daesh is like Uber, everyone can join, the scenarios and methods are just a mouse-click away. There is no central authority, no leaders to bomb etc.

The one thing in my opinion on which the future hinges is, what will the average undecided muslim do in the future ? Will they be swayed by fundamentalism and if only passively support jihad ? Or will a new movement arise as it become painfully obvious that the fundamentalists have no answers except fanaticism and a predatory society that is desperately trying to turn the clock back to the blessed days of early Islam. The experience with groups like the Taliban, Daesh, Boko Haram etc in places like Afghanistan, Somalia etc is that they can only retain power through violence and suppression. All of these movements have groups and organisations that are against them.

The Arab spring has shown, that people are sick and tired of dictators, rampant corruption and lack of prospects. Right now they are willing to give radicals the benefit of the doubt because they have all been brought up with the idea that Islam is the perfect answer to everything and are willing to go through a lot of cognitive dissonance to believe they are better off under a bunch of violent homicidal crazy religious fanatics than under a more secular dictatorship. To make an analogy, quite a lot of people in the USSR welcomed the nazis because they were fed up with Stalin, but when the nazis turned out even worse than Stalin …

The Arab spring has shown, that people are sick and tired of dictators, rampant corruption and lack of prospects. Right now they are willing to give radicals the benefit of the doubt because they have all been brought up with the idea that Islam is the perfect answer to everything and are willing to go through a lot of cognitive dissonance to believe they are better off under a bunch of violent homicidal crazy religious fanatics than under a more secular dictatorship. To make an analogy, quite a lot of people in the USSR welcomed the nazis because they were fed up with Stalin, but when the nazis turned out even worse than Stalin

Excellent point!

Same thing happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet war. Various narco-terrorist warlords (such as Kharzai's family) ruled parts of the country and abused the people. Sons were forced into gangs and girls were assaulted.

The Afghan people turned to the Taliban, giving up their freedom in exchange for order and safety.

"Total war" means getting the civilians onboard with fully supporting the military.

In the U.S. it came to mean going shopping and tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

:-D

Even our most extreme hawks don't support the sacrifices needed for the military adventures they espouse.

Some say that we spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy when they tried to compete with us in the 80s. Our enemies have leaned that lesson.

For the cost of some pilot training and about a dozen plane tickets Bin Laden got us to do the same to ourselves. Talk about asymmetrical warfare! They spent several thousand dollars. We've borrowed $4 USD trillion for the Afghan and Iraq wars (and that was as of 2013!).

We are truly our own worst enemy and dance at the end of their puppet strings. They mount some random attacks, we vote away our liberties and borrow & spend ourselves into bankruptcy.

Regardless of all the rhetoric. Raqqa and Mosul must be retaken to upset Daesh's Center of Gravity. That will much reduce their ability to recruit to their cause on the battlefield. And less likely for some to be e-racialized.

Along with all the LEOs, intel, security, etc. assets going after Daesh and it's sympathizers worldwide, especially in Europe. Plus follow the …

As has been noted Total War on Deash, AQ, etc., is what they want. And the US, NATO, etc. have already fought two wars in Iraq. And still has around 5000 troops sit there.

Along with the continuing conflict in A'stan. With about 9800 troops still there. Where, BTW, 5 US soldiers were WIA'd yesterday. But none seriously fortunately. While supporting ANA SF going after Daesh. I have more faith in the Taliban and AQ to take care of Daesh. Than the ANA/ANP, Iraqis and even Syria.

It might even become a never ending conflict there between the ANA/ANP, the Taliban and AQ and Daesh. As long as they were busy killing each other off. And too busy to bother the West would be a good turn of evens, IMO …

Terrorism is frightening but it is not a real threat to the survival of a state usually. 33,000 Americans die per year from gun related injuries. That's more people than all the victims of ISIL of all nationalities per year. Likewise 33,000 Americans die from automobile accidents and 2.25 million are injured per year. From 2004-2013 only 80 Americans died from terrorism and of those only 36 died on American soil. Thus some proportionality in response seems warranted. Total War vs. terrorism seems a bit hyperbolic given the low level of threat it has presented to date.

The US has many gun control laws with more coming. But to outlaw all fire arms then only outlaws will have guns. And maybe we should outlaw cars, because more are killed by cars than terrorism ?

Thousand are kill by malpractice by medical professionals every year. Maybe we should outlaw doctors ?

1% of people are who ride motorcycles belong to criminal biker gangs. Maybe outlaw motorcycles ?

I don't buy the earlier definitions of "total war", where as asserted above, both sides must engage in it symmetrically. All that is required to define total war is the result being an attack on a nation's infrastructure in a "totality". Already this has begun through the Medía. All that prevents it becoming a total war is a lack of "warriors" for the cause. If propaganda, coupled with perception, causes Muslims to "flee" to the ranks and become jihadists, then an actual total war will result. By then it will be too late. There is no way that any nation can root out such widespread covert and overt action.

Are we in danger of a rapidly spreading "cancer" of radicalism? No way to know until it is too late. Looking back we can say yes or no. But before the fact we cannot know. Already, in the last few weeks, there has been an uptick in violent occurrences. Will the incidence increase? No way to know right now! We wait and see what happens? And if IS is successful at turning public perception into widespread animosity toward Muslims, and the uptick in violence turns almost overnight into an explosion of jihadist attacks, it will be too late.

So the war against radicalism must occupy two fronts: good intentions toward Muslims, from the top gov't levels to the common man in the street; that must not change, ever! And wiping out the overt attackers where they are already occupied establishing some sort of "homeland" i.e. caliphate, whathaveyou. That must stop. And eradicating it must be a cooperative effort between the US and our allies and the occupied areas; the locals must join in policing their own problem. It must be seen as their war in their own self interest. That way, Muslims living anywhere, will see it as a cleansing of Islam, not a destruction of it, or a threat….

Great War Ace:
There are two widely accepted definitions of what total war is. One has been described above. The other is as follows:

Total War – noun: A war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded.

So, unless you're advocating suspending the rules of war, international humanitarian law, using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and spreading this war to every slum, ghetto, shanty town, barrio, favela and neighborhood around the globe then it just ain't Total War.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

33,000 Americans die per year from gun related injuries

Rod,
You aren't taking into account that a full 2/3 of that number are due to suicides.

And before you go off on how guns enable suicides… might I point out that the ratio of suicides per 100,000 people in Canada are similar to the USA?
In fact, both nations actually have some of the lowest suicide rates of modern industrialized nations.

Also, you use terrorism figures up to 2013 while we all know that modern ISIS/Daesh began in June, 2014 by announcement of their caliphate.

cwlinsj and Legion4:

OK so 11,000 per annum vs. 80 deaths in a decade. That's still a differential of three orders of magnitude.

I cited gun deaths and car deaths in the USA as comparisons to terrorist deaths. I was just trying to put some numerical perspective into a discussion about using total war as a response in a war on terrorism. The PDF I linked to provided many more numbers. At no time did I state, imply or even intend to advocate for gun control or 'car control' for that matter. While each of the 80 deaths from terrorism was a tragedy that number of deaths does not rise to the level of deaths from lightning over the same ten year period. I am not advocating static electricity control either.

If a state is going to embark upon Total War then there better be a damn good reason for doing so. 80 deaths in a decade or even 3600 deaths in one morning does not justify unrestricted global war without sober and rational consideration.

Rod Robertson.

Well, this started out as a discussion on "total war" and ISIS. You turned this into another attack against the USA using statistics and figures you do not fully understand.

Might I again point out that you use numbers up to 2013 when ISIS did not officially originate until June, 2014 by their own decree?

Sure looks like clear bias and an agenda on your part.

cwlinsj:

If you think citing published and verifiable facts is an attack on the USA then the world must seem a pretty hostile place to you. I cut off at 2013 to make a decade for easier reckoning from a base of 2004. If you look at 2014 the trend continues with about 12,560 non-suicide deaths from fire arms and only 73 deaths from terrorism from 2005 – 2014. When reliable numbers for 2015 become available they could be cited too. There is nothing sinister about my citations and no hidden agenda at work. I am not attacking anything except the idea of waging Total War for unwarranted reasons.

Here are some more numbers to rile you up and feed your perception that I am attacking the USA as a Canadian Lord Haw-Haw. Chill dude.

link

Finally ISIL has been around by other names since 1999, it had the initials in English ISI since 2006 and finally adopted its Arabic name (from which the initials DAESH or ISIL in English come) in April of 2013.

Rod Robertson.

What "total war" will achieve is the "defeat" of ISIS, after which the US will declare mission accomplished and go home. Not all ISIS fighters will be killed or captured, since some will inevitably melt into the civilian population.

Then, somewhere down the road ISIS, or a future version of it under a different name, will re-emerge. It's happened in Afghanistan with the Taliban, which the US supposedly destroyed in her invasion of 2001.

We don't have to wait till the death rate rises enough to "justify" total war. We can wage it before that happens, because we see what's coming. Don't we learn anything from the past's mistakes? WW2 could have totally been avoided by a total war footing, to which Hitler could have had no response. IS is no different. A total war footing begins by declaring such. Then, as needed, resources are drawn into waging it. You don't treat total war as some kind of ON OFF switch. You turn it "on" by declaring it and following up immediately. No posturing. That's not total war. You declare it, and you move in at once with overwhelming strength and end the threat….

Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that you convince a Western Coallition to wage total war on ISIL and its ilk. You move back into Iraq and the terrorists move into Syria. You invade Syria and they move into Africa, Lebanon and Turkey. You invade Lebanon but dare not invade Turkey because that would trigger an Article 5 response from the rest of NATO. As you negotiate with Turkey the terrorists disperse throughout the Caucuses and Central Asia. You invade Libya and they move to Tunisia, Algeria and Morroco. You invade all of North Africa and they filter into Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. Mali, Congo and all of Central Africa become targets. ISIL appears in Afghanistan and Iran and so you invade these states too. But then they appear in nuclear-armed Pakistan and begin to spread into nuclear-armed India and throughout Indonessia and the Philippines. You invade Indonessia and the Philippines and they move from South Asia into the Stan's of Central Asia and Russia. You keep chasing them down with military force in third-party countries who don't appreciate your special operations and follow-on invasions and occupations. Their indigenous populations radicalize in response to unilateral Western Coallition military action and a panoply of pseudo-ISIL's begin to form and spread throughout the world.

Eventually you run out of money, troops and support as your military is spread thinner and thinner over wider and wider expanses of the globe. The Coallition is so strained by the burden of a global total war that members leave or under contribute. The most determined Coallition member states soldier on until they are bankrupt and broken. Still the terrorists survive and spread their doctrines and creeds of hate and resistance made more attractive by the reaction to years of unilateral military action against host states by the Coallition. Where does it end? With the final collapse of the Total Warring States. War is not the appropriate tool to fight most terrorism. You cannot bomb, drone strike or assassinate hate and a desire to use violence out of humanity. Cain lives in us all and if you try to wipe out Cain you will make us all Abels.

Rod Robertson.

I think the mistake is limiting this discussion to the US. As usual, the oceans do a good job of separating the US from our enemies.

Instead, the focus should probably be on France and Germany, where the tempo of terrorism (and the greater number of attacks) changes the arithmetic.

Rod --

You're making a mistake in your analysis. Just because military action is not sufficient to defeat this enemy, doesn't mean that you can ignore it.

It is one of the keys: you have to demonstrate to your enemy your willingness to fight, and the superiority of your military. That repeated lesson provides support to the other lesson, that this military is a product of a liberal democracy and a free market.

Without that first demonstration, your enemy will not take you seriously. Remember Ten Bears: "There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life."

Meilczyslaw:

You're quoting the words of screen writers from the Clint Eastwood movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales". Read Ten Bears' real words after being betrayed over and over again by the Blue-coats and their Great Fathers in distant Washington and you will see the futility of having faith in the words of the Great Father and the moral bankruptcy of the north, central or south American States in their treatment of the First Peoples. It is a history of shame repeated from the Arctic Circle to the Tierra del Fuego and is a lesson in why the peoples of the world should view powerful states bent on enclosing land and freedom with scepticism, fear and hostility. The life of Ten Bears' could be an object lesson for the Afghan peoples or others of the Middle East to double down on armed resistance and terrorism. The long-knives cannot be trusted and their words mean nothing but death.

…My heart is filled with joy when I see you here, as the brooks fill with water when the snow melts in the spring; and I feel glad, as the ponies do when the fresh grass starts in the beginning of the year. I heard of your coming when I was many sleeps away, and I made but a few camps when I met you. I know that you had come to do good to me and my people. I looked for benefits which would last forever, and so my face shines with joy as I look upon you. My people have never first drawn a bow or fired a gun against the whites. There has been trouble on the line between us and my young men have danced the war dance. But it was not begun by us. It was you to send the first soldier and we who sent out the second. Two years ago I came upon this road, following the buffalo, that my wives and children might have their cheeks plump and their bodies warm. But the soldiers fired on us, and since that time there has been a noise like that of a thunderstorm and we have not known which way to go. So it was upon the Canadian. Nor have we been made to cry alone. The blue dressed soldiers and the Utes came from out of the night when it was dark and still, and for camp fires they lit our lodges. Instead of hunting game they killed my braves, and the warriors of the tribe cut short their hair for the dead. So it was in Texas. They made sorrow come in our camps, and we went out like the buffalo bulls when the cows are attacked. When we found them, we killed them, and their scalps hang in our lodges. The Comanches are not weak and blind, like the pups of a dog when seven sleeps old. They are strong and farsighted, like grown horses. We took their road and we went on it. The white women cried and our women laughed.

But there are things which you have said which I do not like. They were not sweet like sugar but bitter like gourds. You said that you wanted to put us upon reservation, to build our houses and make us medicine lodges. I do not want them. I was born on the prairie where the wind blew free and there was nothing to break the light of the sun. I was born where there were no inclosures [sic] and where everything drew a free breath. I want to die there and not within walls. I know every stream and every wood between the Rio Grande and the Arkansas. I have hunted and lived over the country. I lived like my fathers before me, and like them, I lived happily.

When I was at Washington the Great Father told me that all the Comanche land was ours and that no one should hinder us in living upon it. So, why do you ask us to leave the rivers and the sun and the wind and live in houses? Do not ask us to give up the buffalo for the sheep. The young men have heard talk of this, and it has made them sad and angry. Do not speak of it more. I love to carry out the talk I got from the Great Father. When I get goods and presents I and my people feel glad, since it shows that he holds us in his eye.

If the Texans had kept out of my country there might have been peace. But that which you now say we must live on is too small. The Texans have taken away the places where the grass grew the thickest and the timber was the best. Had we kept that we might have done the things you ask. But it is too late. The white man has the country which we loved, and we only wish to wander on the prairie until we die. Any good thing you say to me shall not be forgotten. I shall carry it as near to my heart as my children, and it shall be as often on my tongue as the name of the Great Father. I want no blood upon my land to stain the grass. I want it all clear and pure and I wish it so that all who go through among my people may find peace when they come in and leave it when they go out.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

You keep chasing them down with military force in third-party countries who don't appreciate your special operations and follow-on invasions and occupations.

Where are the local people "policing their own problem" in all of this? I did say that that was an essential. Without local support we have nothing to join in a war against terrorism. In that event, all we can do is defend ourselves. That war could go on a long, long time. But I wouldn't expect it to, unless ISIL, et al. the groups that win out become the de facto governments of huge sections of the world, i.e. turn into organized states with resources and technology to rival the US.

@Ten Bears: You do know that Amerindians preyed upon each other for countless generations. The only permanent problem came with population explosion so huge that it engulfed the entire Western hemisphere. When the "great father" spoke he meant what he said, at the time, and peace was hoped for. But the movement of peoples like a flood made the prairie life impossible. So the break came in previous agreements and promises were also broken. No one person could be blamed for any of it. The movement was to huge to deny or control. It swept up native and immigrant alike. And one side, the small side, lost out, as it always does. The world changed forever.

Now we are in the infancy of another movement that threatens to become (or already is) too big to prevent. What tomorrow will be nobody knows….