4
4
0
In light of the events of the last 24 hours, I am wondering when will enough be enough? When, if ever, will we actually go all in?
I, personally, hope the nukes are fueled, the Tomahawks are ready, and we finally decide we are actually at war... Total War/Absolute War.
These are very sad and frustrating times... Our military leaders know what needs to be done... But, we seemed to remain largely reserved....
The concept of absolute war was a philosophical construct developed by the military theorist General Carl von Clausewitz. This concept was featured in the first half of the first chapter of his most famous book, On War. In it, Clausewitz explained that absolute war is a philosophical abstraction--a "logical fantasy"--that is impossible in practice because it is not directed or constrained by political motives or concerns, nor limited by the practical constraints of time or space. He called warfare constrained by these moderating real-world influences real war.
In his explanation of absolute war, Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will". However, war itself does not contain inherent moral or political aspects. These conditions (for instance, the laws of armed conflict) are placed on war by those who fight it, and exist because the intelligence of the civilized nations involved exercises greater influence on their methods of fighting war than does their instinctive hostility.
Absolute war can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise, in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations. In On War, Clausewitz explains what makes up absolute war:
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Cworks/Works.htm
I, personally, hope the nukes are fueled, the Tomahawks are ready, and we finally decide we are actually at war... Total War/Absolute War.
These are very sad and frustrating times... Our military leaders know what needs to be done... But, we seemed to remain largely reserved....
The concept of absolute war was a philosophical construct developed by the military theorist General Carl von Clausewitz. This concept was featured in the first half of the first chapter of his most famous book, On War. In it, Clausewitz explained that absolute war is a philosophical abstraction--a "logical fantasy"--that is impossible in practice because it is not directed or constrained by political motives or concerns, nor limited by the practical constraints of time or space. He called warfare constrained by these moderating real-world influences real war.
In his explanation of absolute war, Clausewitz defined war as "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will". However, war itself does not contain inherent moral or political aspects. These conditions (for instance, the laws of armed conflict) are placed on war by those who fight it, and exist because the intelligence of the civilized nations involved exercises greater influence on their methods of fighting war than does their instinctive hostility.
Absolute war can be seen to be an act of violence without compromise, in which states fight to war's natural extremes; it is a war without the 'grafted' political and moral moderations. In On War, Clausewitz explains what makes up absolute war:
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Cworks/Works.htm
Warfare
Strategy
Nuclear
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 10
5
5
0
150+ people dead in Paris is a tragedy, no doubt. But, I don't think sending 10's of thousands of troops back into the desert is going to fix the problem. The problem may appear to be in the desert, but it's really already inside our borders - it's an idealogical problem that isn't going to be solved with bullets and bombs. Perhaps we should look at some other tools at our disposal.
(5)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
COL Charles Williams - Don't take the bait, COL Williams. We have some on here that will pick bits and pieces and use it without the context as to how it was obviously meant. You were making a good point and your statement about what has not worked was right on.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SFC Eric Williams - Don't send the military into battle, unless you are prepared to do what is necessary to win. There have been thousands of lives lost and 10s of thousands wounded using a variety of strategies and tactics that were extremely flawed. No, when someone speaks of absolute/total war, it would, in all probability, mean what ever is necessary to protect our nation and allies per treaties. And I am still waiting for the list of "tools" we have not tried so far.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
COL Charles Williams - Sir, "All In" worked against Japan and Germany because there were tangible targets and objectives that would end the war. Germany's leadership was it's Achilles Heel in that beyond the top one or two in the highest echelons of power, the rest of the leadership wasn't so gung-ho on Hitler's ideology. Taking out Hitler effectively eliminated Germany as opposition. For Japan, the Emperor did value his people and had no desire to see them obliterated - that was his Achilles Heel - humanity. I'm not sure ISIS suffers from either of those weaknesses. They aren't controlled by one guy who holds the group together - you cut off one head and it's irrelevant - every one of them is a head. They don't care about their people - they don't HAVE a people. They aren't driven by people - they are driven by an ideology and religion. The best you can do on the ground is to disperse them temporarily. Winning against ISIS and other terror groups comes from eliminating their funding and their recruiting options.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Not to be rude, but you're absolutely insane. Advocating nuclear war? Besides, have you learned nothing from the past decade and a half? Conventional war against religious extremism does not work. We have to figure out another way, and we damned well need that way to be in line with our societies morals. Genocide is the hallmark of evil, of those who we have always claimed the moral high ground against and fought, it is not the American way.
(3)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
No I am not totally insane, nor did I write On War, the Pricinciples of War, or any other seminal writing on what works in war. No I am not advocating nuclear war. But, I do believe if you are going to wage war, you have to be committed, and do whatever is necessary to win. We know how and capable, but our enemies, like in many other wars since WWII know we will not go all in... We try to do as little as possible to try and fix things, and that never works. Perhaps total war is not the answer, but neither is our current approach. I have been deployed plenty of times, and each time, we did good, but in retrospect, and historically, it seems over time, all the losses we suffered are for nought.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
COL Charles Williams, when you write "I, personally, hope the nukes are fueled, the Tomahawks are ready, and we finally decide we are actually at war... Total War/Absolute War" how is that supposed to be interpreted but anything other than an endorsement? I'm not questioning the total war concept, or any of the books you cite. I question you specifically, and your ideas on how to combat those who would do us harm.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I posted this on another thread.
WE DROPPED TWICE AS MANY BOMBS ON VIET NAM AS WE DID GERMANY.
How did that work out?
Conventional military force is of limited use in this situation -- even counter productive.
How many times do we have to play the same losing hand?
The type operations some people keep bandying about are on a scale equaling Operation OVERLORD in scale. Hell yeah! Why not!
Because we are 18 trillion dollars in debt?
I fudged around with the numbers. Our ground combat component is abut 10% the size it was in WWII.
We cannot conduct huge military operations any longer.
Former/active military? Archie Bunker could make better plans than many of you.
Walt
WE DROPPED TWICE AS MANY BOMBS ON VIET NAM AS WE DID GERMANY.
How did that work out?
Conventional military force is of limited use in this situation -- even counter productive.
How many times do we have to play the same losing hand?
The type operations some people keep bandying about are on a scale equaling Operation OVERLORD in scale. Hell yeah! Why not!
Because we are 18 trillion dollars in debt?
I fudged around with the numbers. Our ground combat component is abut 10% the size it was in WWII.
We cannot conduct huge military operations any longer.
Former/active military? Archie Bunker could make better plans than many of you.
Walt
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. ― Michael Crichton
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Very Very good points Gunny. I was speaking to the guys who want to blast ISIS and anyone in the vicinity back to the stone age.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Charles Williams
Capt Richard I P. What do you recommend, or see as the best way ahead? We don't see to be getting anywhere.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
COL Charles Williams From the US perspective? I think things are going alright. Not great, not terrible, but the kind of low level violence any Hegemony/Empire maintains in order to avoid total wars. Our policy of alliances, bribes, training and leveraging allies and occasional small scale commitments of our own forces keeps most of the enemies busy in areas other than ours with minimal cost of our own lives, and probably only moderate expenditure of treasure relative to other options. It's not exactly a constitutional solution (the whole declaration of war thing) but it is a pretty traditional one, and it is working pretty well in terms of the wars happening elsewhere and the majority of the populace being insulated from the conflicts.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Sir, in going after "someone" or "something", what are we defining ourselves as and who are we fighting? I have no problems defending home turf from anyone, but I need to know who "anyone" is. I need parameters, I need an effective ROE, leaders who know what we're doing and aren't "winging" it. France will have this problem as they go about finding who did this. It's extremely wrong, harsh, and cowardly how this was done. But again WHO are they going after? Some might say it's Islam, radicalized Islam, some goatf*cker, and you still do not know WHO it actually is. What needs to be done, and it won't prevent another incident from happening, is a honest and true understanding of WHO and WHY. Not based of hatred, speculation, innuendo, or scuttlebutt from mass media. Most don't have a clue, but are quick to point fingers, or wave the flag the minute ISIS is mentioned. We don't even know if they're claiming it for propaganda's sake or that they actually did it. So who are we or they going after? Maybe we need to figure out what makes them so appealing, how is it we can send troops to formal schools for recruiting, and ISIS has no brick and mortar recruitment shops, but definitely make their quota for the month, better than our recruiters do. How can we not only "get into" the minds of the trainee's, but their trainers. We need to make a plan not based of ammo and BOG, but defeating an ideal. Sorry but NO amount of bullets can kill an idea. No bomb exists either. Move away from kinetic ops to more asymmetrical operations? IO operations, Cyber operations? None of what we've done so far has amounted to much in the grand scheme of things other than chance revenge killings like the John character. We don't want to know our enemy; we want to dehumanize them to the point where killing is easier than saving. We need that for a defined enemy. ISIS to me is worse than the Taliban is. At least we had "signs" that would help us in spotting them, or knowing they might be in the AO. ISIS is everywhere but nowhere at the same time.
To prove my point, a quick list of ideas where violence was used against an idea/ideal, and it didn't kill it, it made things stronger: Civil Rights, segregation, integration, women's and children's rights, LGBT rights, debate over religious freedom, drugs, and many more. You cannot kill an idea or belief. You can change the narrative in how it's talked about, but if you have no credibility or knowledge, no one's going to believe you. You can fight with leaflets, might get somewhere, Find real people who are respected in that area of the world, and ask them to speak out. MLK was highly respected during the Civil Rights era, and was key to bringing things together in a manner everyone could respect, even though they might not have liked him. Reagan didn't drop any bombs on the USSR; he waited them out knowing they were going to implode. He and other world leaders used back room thinking to make it damn near impossible for the USSR to exist, and it failed right on time. We're not doing that, and sending SF isn't going to help in this case. Sending a BDE, DIV or even three, won't change much. Dropping a metric assload of nukes WON'T do a thing, but I'd wager there's gonna be hell to pay here if we did. No more munitions. No more handheld weapons, let's go to war with their minds. We're not stupid, and are very intelligent. Use the brain bucket to figure out how to fight an idea, and make it seem that we're doing them a favor. Then we'll see some results.
To prove my point, a quick list of ideas where violence was used against an idea/ideal, and it didn't kill it, it made things stronger: Civil Rights, segregation, integration, women's and children's rights, LGBT rights, debate over religious freedom, drugs, and many more. You cannot kill an idea or belief. You can change the narrative in how it's talked about, but if you have no credibility or knowledge, no one's going to believe you. You can fight with leaflets, might get somewhere, Find real people who are respected in that area of the world, and ask them to speak out. MLK was highly respected during the Civil Rights era, and was key to bringing things together in a manner everyone could respect, even though they might not have liked him. Reagan didn't drop any bombs on the USSR; he waited them out knowing they were going to implode. He and other world leaders used back room thinking to make it damn near impossible for the USSR to exist, and it failed right on time. We're not doing that, and sending SF isn't going to help in this case. Sending a BDE, DIV or even three, won't change much. Dropping a metric assload of nukes WON'T do a thing, but I'd wager there's gonna be hell to pay here if we did. No more munitions. No more handheld weapons, let's go to war with their minds. We're not stupid, and are very intelligent. Use the brain bucket to figure out how to fight an idea, and make it seem that we're doing them a favor. Then we'll see some results.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
First we need to get these sumbitches out of our own country and stop that border from hemmoraging before we commit all our fighting men abroad.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I believe the current answer is no. Even with the tragedy in Paris, the US does not have the political will [and perhaps after our post 9/11 adventures, the full military capacity] to prosecute a total war against a decentralized, non-state entity.
As to your expressed personal desires regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, I pray that we never haver to explore any of those options. If we are to retain any of sense of our national identity, our American values and the moral high ground we have to learn to fight and win without giving up on what we stand for.
- If we stoop to the level of the enemy, we lose.
- If we change our way of life in response to a threat from this enemy, we lose.
In my opinion we have already given away too much of our freedom for the illusion of security, and placed ourselves on the brink of losing both.
I do believe we can defeat these fundamental threats to our existence, however, it will take a greater commitment of national will and treasure then we have to date been willing to expend.
As to your expressed personal desires regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction, I pray that we never haver to explore any of those options. If we are to retain any of sense of our national identity, our American values and the moral high ground we have to learn to fight and win without giving up on what we stand for.
- If we stoop to the level of the enemy, we lose.
- If we change our way of life in response to a threat from this enemy, we lose.
In my opinion we have already given away too much of our freedom for the illusion of security, and placed ourselves on the brink of losing both.
I do believe we can defeat these fundamental threats to our existence, however, it will take a greater commitment of national will and treasure then we have to date been willing to expend.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Do you like we did in WW1&11? The last wars won conclusively? If effectively communicated to the public how our national security is at risk perhaps our flaccid warriors in the administration would be forced to take steps to "degrade and destroy" our enemies.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I don't think the American public is really ready. They have been conditioned to a very good life with little sacrifice I'm like during World War II when there was rationing of many items.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google