What happened to unconditional surrender?

Sgt Randy Hill — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:17:56 -0400

After General Eisenhower demanded this of the Germans I can think of no case where this was really applied again. I think this should be demanded in today's peace conferences and we should not just walk away especially in Afghanistan.

Response by SSgt Michael Hacker made Jun 2 at 2014 12:22 PM

SSgt Michael Hacker — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:22:47 -0400

Japan

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 2 at 2014 12:24 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:24:36 -0400

We no longer have the foothold to make such a demand. We no longer have warfare confined to a single location and apparently the way these terror cells work, you kill one and 2 more pop up to replace them. Terrorist warfare seems to be against ideas and not a piece of land so where do you draw the line to demand that unconditional surrender?

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 1:21 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:21:10 -0400

I think there is a number of issues with demanding "unconditional surrender":
1. We are not at war with Afghanistan, we are at war with certain extremist who do not agree with our lifestyles and are particularly difficult to identify.
2. We are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani locals
3. Looking back at past conflicts, most notably Germany after WWI, demanding surrender/breaking the spirits of an enemy can cause an enemy to come back even more dangerous as before

The battles we fight now are very different from those in the early-mid 1900's and I feel like victory looks very different.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 2 at 2014 3:09 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:09:45 -0400

SGT Hill,

While I do not disagree...when fighting a modern nation state...the problem with the fight in Afghanistan is that elected rulers of the country, have 'surrendered unconditionally' and, at least claim, are fighting with us. Who would you like to surrender?