War, to Humane, Must be Total (Congress, Iran, Iraq, middle east)

[jbgusa]

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.



There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. The Islamic countries of the Middle East do not want a Jewish state of Israel.


For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

[jbgusa]

In the thread What makes a president great? there is a discussion of putting both Bushes, including Bush 43 into the list of Presidential "dregs" alone with Nixon, Buchanan and Pierce.

I argue he will be treated better by history than by his contemporaries. He made the same mistake as I outlined in the OP. When we start or are engaged in wars, we should hit strong and hard. And maybe consider using mercenaries since it may be impractical to put $300,000 of education in each soldier onto the battlefield.

He was a wartime President and the economy benefited by the boom and suffered by the resulting bust. He did not cause Katrina. His mistake in Iraq wasn't the invasion. It was not hitting hard and fast. But that is a mistake every U.S. President has made in war except McKinley in the very small Spanish-American War. I discussed this perennial mistake in:

1. The OP
2. This post, Wars must be fought to the finish and WW I ended. in this thread, Had the Treaty of Versailles been more fair could WWII been avoided?;
3. It all comes down to rules of engagement. If the... in US admits it has trained only 60 Syrians to fight ISIL,
4. I didn't "forget." They don't belong there. Jeb... in What makes a president great? and
5. Others.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

In the thread What makes a president great? there is a discussion of putting both Bushes, including Bush 43 into the list of Presidential "dregs" alone with Nixon, Buchanan and Pierce.

I argue he will be treated better by history than by his contemporaries. He made the same mistake as I outlined in the OP. When we start or are engaged in wars, we should hit strong and hard. And maybe consider using mercenaries since it may be impractical to put $300,000 of education in each soldier onto the battlefield.

He was a wartime President and the economy benefited by the boom and suffered by the resulting bust. He did not cause Katrina. His mistake in Iraq wasn't the invasion. It was not hitting hard and fast. But that is a mistake every U.S. President has made in war except McKinley in the very small Spanish-American War. I discussed this perennial mistake in: 1) a thread I started, War, to Humane, Must be Total , this post, Wars must be fought to the finish and WW I ended. 2) in this thread, Had the Treaty of Versailles been more fair could WWII been avoided?; 3) this post in It all comes down to rules of engagement. If the... in US admits it has trained only 60 Syrians to fight ISIL, 4) Post #47 (no link yet available) What makes a president great? and others.

Yes, it WAS! The 9/11 attacks should have shifted his focus from Saddam to those who attacked us, major failure on his administration's part.

BTW, Humane War? Could there possibly be a more oxymoronic phrase?

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by burdell

Yes, it WAS! The 9/11 attacks should have shifted his focus from Saddam to those who attacked us, major failure on his administration's part.

The problem with Iraq was they made a farce of U.N. "inspections." If we didn't go to war the inspection regime would have officially, rather than de facto, become farcical. As it will prove in Iran.

Originally Posted by burdell

BTW, Humane War? Could there possibly be a more oxymoronic phrase?

Of course it would be better not to have to go to war ever. The fact is that the lion does not lay down with the lamb, and some countries don't play nicely. If war is needed the West should hit hard and fast.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Of course it would be better not to have to go to war ever. The fact is that the lion does not lay down with the lamb, and some countries don't play nicely. If war is needed the West should hit hard and fast.

Obama seems to want war with Russia and China. Total war with them means nuclear war.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

Obama seems to want war with Russia and China. Total war with them means nuclear war.

He hit the "reset" button on relations with Russia. I suppose that American weakness in other areas does invite catastrophe elsewhere.

[jbgusa]

The concept that limited war is almost always a failure is never learned. I am having this discussion elsewhere, Why don't Americans admit that Vietnam was a failure?

[jbgusa]

See Post #55 in anyone dislike Abraham Lincoln?

[jbgusa]

For more on the OP topic, see Sanctions Are Not a Substitute For Military Action .

[carterstamp]

War is never humane, and no losses are "acceptable losses". Until we get this into our thick skulls, nothing will change.