What is War?

According to Clausewitz there are two kinds of war, “in the sense that either the objective is to overthrow the enemy—to render him politically helpless or militarily impotent, thus forcing him to sign whatever peace we please; or merely to occupy some of his frontier-districts so that we can annex them or use them for bargaining at the peace negotiations.”

Total War is a termed coined by Guilio Duhet in the 1920s and approaches Clausewitz’s abstract concept of Absolute War in the sense that it allowed all means (including poison gas and incendiary weapons – most potent of his day) and all ways (with no distinction between combatants and non-combatants) for the unlimited objectives of overthrowing the enemy. The Civil War was not a total war, the First World War was nearer to it, and the Second World War was nearer still due to the unlimited bombing campaigns against civilian populations.

Unfortunately Clausewitz had never been exposed to the proxy wars of the 20th Century where the largest of state players lacked the national or political will to effect "Absolute War" against our rivals, choosing instead to conduct it against proxy states in a manner that has yet to meet the "Just War" principles.
The long term effects of Operation Ranch Hand in Vietnam, the funding of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, US chemical weapons that supported the Iraq-Iran war. Even our involvement in Iraq since 2003 has generated more harm than good for the population and the stability of the community of Nations.
Since the end of WW II, the hawks have yet to make a successful call in declaring a just war.

It is easy for us to armchair quarterback decision makers of the time with today's scientific knowledge and knowledge of the outcomes, but we have to put ourselves in their seats at that specific time and place with the ethics of their day....I would say we can debate the ethical decision of Operation Ranch Hand but at the time it was considered within "international law," funding the Mujaheddin was purely against the Soviets at the time with little thought of what that could eventually become and square in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis so other things were seen as perhaps of higher priority, and have to state that US Chemical Weapons were NEVER used in the Iraq-Iran war- Iraq developed those against the Geneva convention and in violation of treaties that they had agreed to abide by which led to the distrust the US had over their programs years later.

Not sure anyone actually declares a just war, seems more that "fear honor and interests" (Thucydides) drive us into war that we then go back and apply Just War theory to the situation in an attempt to justify it.

or condemn it.

I have no problem with the war as a means to preserve the American way of life, as long as we are actually preserving the American way of life. We are currently experiencing conditions in America, matters of ethics and morals in government, that endanger that dream on our own soil, yet we use the excuse that we are "exporting" our democracy, which is in direct violation of our own personal concepts of self-determination. At the end of the day, wars will be fought, won and lost, based not on the values for which we fought, but on the will and determination of young men, both good and evil, who fight for our cause. Whether our cause be just or not, only history will tell by the mark we leave on future generations.
If we lack the national will, the political will, and the educated policies to see war carried through to a just end, there is no just war. And there is only one that we came close to getting right, WW II, and that was because of the effective implementation of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, after the effective use of absolute warfare.
Yes, I probably am doing a some armchair quarterbacking after 238+ years of American history, and I am probably getting it wrong on some level through the voicing of my opinion and limited knowledge, and over hearing way to many misquotes of Clausewitz out of context. But I do believe that if we are to go to war, decisive victory in combat is only a milestone in the ultimate goal of peace.

Thank you MSgt (Join to see) how do you account for the use of violence as an integral part of "war" to accomplish the change in behavior since that can be done without violence?

Violence is an option to influence war. Sometimes it is the threat of violence (North Korea vs. South Korea) that can cause an outcome. Sometimes it is actual violence that is used to force the issue. However, the use of violence brings in different concerns (based on your philosophy). If you go to a full war (non-small scale strategic strike) you must go through phase 4 stabilization and phase 5 redeployment. Phase 4 stabilization operations are affected on how much destruction/violence was utilized during phase 3 execution (dominate) of war. If your troops brought more violence and destruction than necessary to bring about change, the populace can be resentful and more willing to turn to an insurgency. If you cannot conduct your self in a manner that affects change through phase 3 (to include diplomatic/informational manner) you could lose the legitimacy of war not only on the populace you are trying to influence change but also within your own people or other nation states. This is why I have to believe that the leaders above me have calculated the amount of force necessary to affect an outcome. An example of this is regardless of outcome a cop that shoots an unarmed suspect will always lose some form of legitimacy even if act is justified because the populace views unarmed shootings as wrong.