Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
In the most recent episode of The Levy & Counsell Show (which has so far been fascinating) I was struck by Judith Levy's account of the failure of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system to sell abroad. Other buyers said, in effect, “We don’t need it. If anyone shot missiles at us, we would cross the border and kill them all.” That makes a lot of sense. A nation that can afford Iron Dome can certainly afford lower-tech tanks, artillery, and infantry.
I was reminded that the ultimate purpose of war is psychological – convincing the enemy that further belligerence is futile. The physical manifestations, the number dead, the targets destroyed, are all simply tactical means to the psychological end. The enemy’s will to fight must be crushed.
I was reminded that in World War II, the U.S. fire bombed Dresden -- killing over 10,000 civilians. We were busily engaged in doing the same thing to Tokyo when the development of nuclear weapons gave us a shortcut. Those who decry the non-military nature of the targets forget the purpose of war. If melting a city makes the enemy realize that he can’t win, then it’s a reasonable tactic.
How have we fallen so far from this simple understanding? The folly of international law may be part of the answer. But I think we may have done some of the damage to ourselves. In Israel’s strikes in Gaza, meticulous care was taken not to harm civilians. Ditto in U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This seems to be motivated by (1) a sincere belief that gratuitous harm to civilians is wrong and (2) wishing to avoid the PR debacle that invariably follows unintended civilian fatalities, with dead innocents paraded before CNN cameras and credulous reporters.
But the unintended side effects of this policy seem multiple and pernicious. First, it raises the world’s expectations of our conduct. We say we’re trying not to kill civilians, so every errant bomb is an occasion for anti-Western demonstration. Second, it encourages the enemy to hide among civilians, paradoxically putting civilians in harm’s way because of our efforts to protect them.
What if Israel and the U.S. (and whoever else is in the anti-Islamist battle nowadays ... perhaps nobody, now that I think of it) changed their publicly stated military policy to be entirely silent on civilian casualties? They could say that we will pursue our objective without regard to civilian harm. To the extent that civilians are harmed, we consider it the enemy’s fault for operating in civilian areas. If it is safer for our forces to flatten a city block rather than develop the intelligence for a pinpoint strike, then we will flatten a city block.
That might get civilians to be more resistant to terrorists in their midst, it might give anti-Western protesters less to hand-wring about (a single dead girl is a great CNN story, hundreds killed day after day is boring), and it might actually serve the strategic purpose of demoralizing the enemy.
Durable peace is never based on mutual understanding. It’s based on an enemy that believes deeply that it shouldn't fight.
I'd especially love to hear the thoughts of people with actual military knowledge (unlike me), though I suspect law and PR have much to do with this too. (Can we page Dr. Victor Davis Hanson?)
- Comment (62)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Hi Doc, we haven't forgotten but have lost the stomach for it lately. Curtis LeMay and Patton would pimp slap the Patraeus' of this Army and make them wear pink uniforms regarding their rules of engagement.
Sep '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
How about sending your army when missiles are fired at you and not when your people are killed?
Doctor Bean
In the most recent episode of The Levy & Counsell Show (which has so far been fascinating) I was struck by Judith’s account of Iron Dome’s failure to sell abroad. Other buyers said, in effect, “We don’t need it. If anyone shot missiles at us, we would cross the border and kill them all.” That makes a lot of sense. A nation that can afford Iron Dome can certainly afford lower-tech tanks, artillery, and infantry.
Mar '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
We can be sure that neither Iran nor China has forgotten how to crush an enemy.
Feb '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Hi DocJay! Is that all it is? We just can't bring ourselves emotionally to do it? I'd love to hear that from someone who studies the military.
Oct '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Intentionally, making war on civilians is immoral. USA needs to take the high ground. However, that doesn't mean binding our troops with unreasonable restrictions on use of force.
Edited on December 5, 2012 at 2:28amFeb '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Mr. Paquette: Including what we did in WWII, and what the North did in the South in the Civil War?
Jan '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
To paraphrase: We can't handle the truth.
Mar '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
What has been lacking is a clear military definition of victory.
In the Civil War and WWII, it was clear what victory meant - unconditional surrender of the enemy. Even in the first Gulf War, victory was defined in military terms (evict Iraq from Kuwait) and achieved. Massive force was used in all three wars and victory was achieved.
In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan the definition of victory was more political than military. The goal was to prop up or install friendly regimes. But, there was no definition of victory in military terms. In all three wars, we did achieve a military victory. But, that was lost in the political battlefield. Also, limited forces and restrictive operations handicapped our military efforts. Hence, the protracted conflicts with no victory.
It was a politician - Georges Clemenceau - who said, "War is much too important a matter to be left to the generals." But in reality, it is the politicians that lose the wars.
(I do not have a military background, but military history has long been a study of mine.)
Jul '10
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Liberalism has redefined the whole concept of war. Now we are not to actually fight wars, but rather perform "police actions". Note we changed the War Dept. to Dept of Defense. Haven't won a war since.
Israel has fought 5 wars - with basically no consequences to the opposition. Wars should have consequences. It is the only way to make the sacrifice worthy. Yet today all we seem to see is plans for "perpetual peace". But all those plans basically insure perpetual war. Only we lose. Despite outfighting the enemy.
To win a war, not only do you have to have outstanding fighting ability and defeat the enemy on the battle field but you must ALSO have a political system that supports and augments that fighting ability. We don't have that.
Aug '10
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nakasaki get the headlines, but people sometimes forget that the Allies also bombed French cities back to the stone age because the Nazis built bomb-proof fortifications nearby, or in the centre of town. Without the ability to destroy the Nazi installation, the only other option was to destroy the surrounding town to deprive the Nazis of supplies.
Which is "worse", firebombing an enemy's city or flattening an ally's city?
My only point bringing this up: I'm glad I didn't have to approve those missions. Could you imagine that sort of mission being approved today?!
Oct '10
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
The purpose of war is to not only to defeat the enemy, but to crush and demoralize. Therefore eliminating future thoughts of agression.
True war is a brutal, ugly and bloody undertaking.
There is no way to conduct a P.C war. Such thoughts only lead to perpetual conflict. The current efforts have become a Fools Errand.
Jul '10
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Misthiocracy: Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nakasaki get the headlines, but people sometimes forget that the Allies also bombed French cities back to the stone age because the Nazis built bomb-proof fortifications nearby, or in the centre of town. Without the ability to destroy the Nazi installation, the only other option was to destroy the surrounding town to deprive the Nazis of supplies.
Which is "worse", firebombing an enemy's city or flattening anally'scity?
My only point bringing this up: I'm glad I didn't have to approve those missions. Could you imagine that sort of mission being approved today?! · 13 minutes ago
?Have you been to war. At the sharp end, such decisions are much clearer and easier to make. Survival is a great motivator. Our problem today is that we have REMF's making the war-fighting decisions.
Sep '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
As a former army officer, I can tell you that you don't need any special knowledge to discuss this issue. It's mostly political. There are a few very high level officers and retirees who have extensive knowledge of this issue, but they don't all agree either. Similarly to many here, my theory is that we no longer go to war against countries. It's a flawed idealism that we believe its unfair to blame citizens of non democratic countries for their dictators. Well, it may be tough, but we need to raise the bar. Certainly, a few countries are truly oppressed, but we need to change the math when it comes to countries like Iran. We need to make it clear that if we need to go to war with Iran, we are going to war with the people of Iran. We plan to conquer them and treat them accordingly. We are likely the nicest conquerors in history but we need to lower expectations for the good of people like those in Iran that need to grab a big stick and take back their country.
Mar '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
wilber forge: The purpose of war is to not only to defeat the enemy, but to crush and demoralize. Therefore eliminating future thoughts of agression.
True war is a brutal, ugly and bloody undertaking.
There is no way to conduct a P.C war. Such thoughts only lead to perpetual conflict. The current efforts have become a Fools Errand.
The citizenry appears to have no understanding of war at all.
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will
Current is an adolescent view of war, a game people choose to engage in. It is not about seizing territory or destroying armies, war is compelling the enemy to submit to your will.
If you cannot accomplish this then the war is lost or the war never ends.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.
-William Tecumseh Sherman
Jul '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Devereaux, Eric Warren, loved the responses. This is very much a political rather than a military question since its politicians and their pet REMF's that do the deciding. Meanwhile two SEALS blow up while desperately marking a mortar for the decimation that never came. May the politicians and their chickenfeces hearts burn for that someday.
Jun '12
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
What if, of all the Republicans in the primaries, Ron Paul was the only one who understood that if a war is necessary, fighting it to win is also necessary?
Mar '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Ditto what Schrödinger's Cat said.
We attacked citizens during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII because it had strategic value in achieiving our goals. In the fight against Al Qaeda, we could have liquidated all of Afghanistan and it would have done little to make us safer from the next terrorist attack than our limited war did.
Brutal attacks on the populace only help when the populace actually has some sway over their military leadership. But the Al Qaeda "military leadership" has no connections to any country at all.
If Curtis LeMay were running the show in Afghanistan we wouldn't be a whit safer than we are now from the threat of terrorism.
Feb '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Interesting responses, everyone.
I had another thought about what might be driving our relatively recent policy of trying to minimize enemy civilian casualties. In our definition of the current conflict as a "War on Terrorism" (rather than a war on Islamist radicals or on fundamentalist Islam) we underscore that terrorism is violence targeted on civilians for political ends. So maybe we have to avoid harming civilians to draw a clear moral distinction between us and them. But I think that's a terrible mistake that stems from our failure to identify our enemy. We are not at war against terrorism. We don't care about the Basque separatists or the Kurd radicals or the IRA (when it existed). I think Israel has the same problem. Israel and American pro-Israel groups kept referring to Shalit as a "kidnapped soldier". He was not kidnapped. He was a uniformed soldier. He was captured. His capture was clearly not an act of terrorism but of war. Why can't we drop the terrorism fetish? Israel is at war with the Palestinians, not with terrorists. (That would also erase the phony distinction between Hamas and Fatah.) We are (were?) at war against radical Islamism.
Feb '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Mendel: The populace had no sway over the military leadership in WWII Japan. Do you disagree with the attacks on Japanese cities? I don't think the link is that the population had control over military leadership, I think it is that attacking the population demoralized the military leadership.
I'm not arguing for purposeful targeting of civilians now, just for acting without their regard, neither going out of our way not to harm them nor to harm them.
Mar '11
Re: Have We Forgotten How to Fight Wars?
Doctor Bean: Mendel: The populace had no sway over the military leadership in WWII Japan. Do you disagree with the attacks on Japanese cities? I don't think the link is that the population had control over military leadership, I think it is that attacking the population demoralized the military leadership.
I'm not arguing for purposeful targeting of civilians now, just for acting without their regard, neither going out of our way not to harm them nor to harm them. · 0 minutes ago
Obviously the country was anything but a democracy, but the citizenry of Japan felt loyal to their Emperor in a way that Shia Iraqis never felt toward Saddam or most Afghanis probably never felt toward the Taliban.
I don't remember where I read it, but I recall that the spiritual connection between Japanese citizens and their leadership played a role in the decision to attack Nagasaki and Hiroshima (and I believe those attacks were definitely the correct choice) - it was hoped that the loyalty the citizens showed their Emperor might cause him to care enough for their lives to end the war after witnessing the power of the bomb.