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 9 y ago
Responses: 11
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google