Redstate

By Raven Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

(Or how I learned to love carpet-bombing)

No, for those to whom this may appear a joke, this is no snark. I am quite serious. And I am a fervent supporter of what was once called the doctrine of Total War.

Total War. A rather innocuous phrase, it seems. It has even become the name of a best-selling video-game series. But what is it, really?

I submit that it is no less than the only way to truly win a war. It could also, however, be termed Western Terrorism. For, like the prevalent forms of terrorism, it serves but 1 purpose. That is to convince the target population that continuing to fight a war against the followers of this doctrine is suicide. That to support those who wish war is more costly than to stand against those persons.

If you look through history, war is a truly horrendous thing. How many women and children and other noncombatants have been killed throughout history because their governments wish each other ill? And those wars, once begun, when did they end?
They ended when 1 of 2 conditions were met:
1) the losing side was rendered completely unable to defend itself and was occupied or outright destroyed. Or
2) When the citizens of one nation or the other refused to fight. As immortalized in the Greek play "Lysistrata"

Through nearly all of mankind's history, war was a test of the true strength of the nations fighting it. The stronger nation invaribly won. Either by numbers or by the skill of its generals and fighting men.
And when they were evenly matched the war continued until changes in internal conditions caused one nation to grow weaker (Athens vs Sparta; France vs England) or the citizens of both nations forced their leaders to stop (The American/English War of 1812).

But not in recent memory. In recent history we have the unarguably most powerful military in human history supported by the most powerful juggernaut of an economy humanity has ever seen be defeated. Not just once. But twice. And spectacular were those defeats. Every battle fought was a victory for the stronger nation. But the war was fought using rules never before seen in warfighting. This powerful nation tried to fight what its politicians termed a "Clean War." And another new term came into its own during the first defeat that nation had ever suffered in its history. That term was "Rules of Engagement."
Yes, for the sticklers, ROE is a relatively old term, but it had never before been the basis of fighting the war. War until 1959 had been fought based on "Destroy the enemy and convince the enemy population to surrender". And all neccessary actions to achieve that goal were taken.
Come 1959-75s Vietnam War, Rules Of Engagement became the core of fighting the war. The idea emerged that one could win a war merely by defeating his enemy's armies on the battlefield and never harming a civilian. Failure to accomplish that objective came to be viewed as the failure of the War itself. "Atrocities" such as My Lai became proof that the perpetrator nation was barbaric and did not deserve to win.
Futhermore, and perhaps more importantly, that nation believed that it was invincible. That not only could it win without killing, but that it could do so without bleeding. Much like the great heroes in the movies of the time. And every killed or injured soldier became another rallying point for the opposition of that war.
For these reasons, the population of that nation turned on its government and threw them out. Installing a new government that retreated. A new government that Handed victory to enemies that were too weak to Take that victory themselves.

Then came 1993. Mogadishu, Somalia. The elite forces of the same, unstoppable nation attacked the ragtag militia forces of the local bullyboy in an attempt to capture his lead advisors, and perhaps the warlord himself. The mission was a Snafu, as military engagements are prone to be. The original plan died at the feet of the enemy forces, there was poor communication and in the fog of battle 18 of the original 160 attackers were killed and another 73 wounded. An appalling casualty rate of nearly 60%. But the mission was completed, with the advisors to the warlord being captured, though the secondary target, their leader, was missed. On top of that, the enemy combatants took an approximated 4-6 Thousand casualties. A testament to the skill of their numericall inferior attackers. A battle not too unlike that of Thermopylae.
Again the government of the decisively victorious nation looked upon their dead and fled. Again handing the victory to the enemy.
And now we are again witnessing a so-called "Clean War". With every dead soldier or civilian being claimed by those against the war as a reason to retreat. Only this time, why the war continues is not only obvious, but loudly proclaimed to all corners of the world.

"If we but continue to bleed the Great Satan, he will retreat and we will win." And those who live and fight by that belief watch as they never could before the battle occurring among their enemies over whether to retreat from a thus far victorious war or to continue on the bloody road to triumph.
And those would stand against them, the civilian population, is too terrified of what will happen to them should they win. In short, they are more fearful of what has so far been the Losing side in this war than of the foreign invaders who blew right through their military like a sandstorm through open windows.

After twice snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, as others have described it, and now arguiing with itself whether to do so a third time, the most powerful nation in the world is beginning to be tested by petty tyrants worldwide. They even go so far as to come within its borders and declare its leader to be a reincarntaion of one of the most evil men in history. And no retaliation is forthcoming.
This nation's allies are doubting whether they can count on it to aid them in the case of possible attack from hostile powers.
it.

It is readily apparent that a significant portion of the world's population is currently enamored of war. That they see death and violence as the ultimate path to their goals. Simultaneously, the Western World looks back at the 1910s and the 1940s and says "Why do they love war so much? It is a terrible thing."
Well, then answer to that question is: "Because unlike the West, they have forgotten how terrible war can be."
They have not experienced Total War since the invasion of the Mongols in the 1200s. I suggest we remind them.

Low level conflict, yes, kills fewer people per year. But it never ends. Peace never comes and the standard of living never improves. Rather, it declines and technology backslides as the schools and universities where the basics of that technology are taught become unsafe to attend and education weakens.
Total War, a la the Napoleonic Wars, The American Civil War, WWI, and WWII, kills hundreds of thousands and even millions in a handful of months or years and are separated by decades of peace and advancement and improvements in the world. The winners of those wars stand through their strength and spread their influence and control, eventually sharing that strength with those they conquered. There are fewer wars and thus less death.

As a great man once said, "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it."
I submit that we have forgotten how terrible war truly is and that we take war too lightly, engaging in it at a moment's notice. Both the USA and its enemies.
It is time we remind the nearly 7 billion people currently living in this world of what war truly means.

In other words:
"There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as terrible evils. I look on them and thank the perpetrators of those 'atrocities' for saving millions."