What do you think about this statement regarding war?

Question

If an issue is worth going to war over, it should be important enough to set aside your humanity, do WHATEVER is necessary to win quickly, and get it over with because "civilized" wars always last longer and cause more death, destruction, and suffering than ones fought brutally and briefly.

Answer 1

How do you make a "nice war"?

Follow the examples of H. Truman, L. Johnson, and G. Bush. Fight with limitations. Fight with a wary eye out for the world political stage. Fight with rules of engagement. Fight with concern for winning the "hearts and minds" of the people in the countries involved.

Then..... LOSE!

In any fight, whether it's a kid against the neighborhood bully or two superpowers attempting conquest of each other, the choices are the same. Destroy your opponent and his will to keep fighting, or walk away.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the lessons. This is a truth that mankind has acknowleged throughout it's existance. The only way to end a war successfully is to bring events to a point where the consequences of continuing the struggle are too terrible to risk.

This is the lesson learned, too late, by Napoleon, when he opted for the negotiation of peace, instead of the destruction of Vienna, and again after victories at Austerlitz and Jena. The royalists of Europe rose once more to march on the Republc of France after they had time to heal their wounds.

This is the lesson taught by U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman to General Robert E. Lee, as he contemplated the utter destruction of his armies and his people.

This is the lesson learned and then forgotten by Harry Truman when he chose to inflict unimaginable horrors on Japan to bring the war to a conclusion. This lession was forgotten when he was unwilling to bring the same force to bear on North Korea. That war has never ended, only paused, giving the North Koreans the opportunity to plan and organize the next phase of their relentless desire for consquest.

We learned from the Vietnam debacle that once again, a "limited" war does nothing but kill people without end or resolution. We also learned that even a welcome foreign power can overstay that same welcome.

War is horror. It is the horror of broken, torn, dismembered, burned, and crushed bodies of men, women, and children. It is the misery of disease and starvation. It is the destruction of homes and businesses. It is the destruction of a way of life for the victims. War is the elevation of honor for some and the loss of honor for most. At its foundation is the struggle for survival, one group to live, and one group to die.

The only way this country will ever be able exist in peace is to make sure the world knows that war with the United States too terrible to be considered as an option. War is Hell. That's what makes it something to be avoided.

Ways to win a war.
1. Eliminate the enemy
2. Eliminate the enemy's reason to fight
3. Eliminate the enemy's ability to fight
4. Eliminate the enemy's will to fight
Pick one

Who is winning the war right now?

http://www.hendrixcampaign.com

Answer 2

I'm curious if you were reading about WWII with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were many reasons why the quick and inhumane method was the best idea for ultimately ending what could have been a worst result. Part of it was that if it did last longer, more American lives would be lost in addition to Japanese lives and the massive loads of money and time being put into the battle among other things. Truman looked at the situation from both sides and for the sake of saving American lives, a quick and inhumane method of winning the war was ultimately the better decision.

Answer 3

Throughout time it has been proven that history is written by the winner. By that logic, the winner's idea of what is civilized is what prevails. Could you imagine if the south had won the Civil War? If England had defeated th Colonials? If Hitler had been successful? I'm quite certain that all those that were defeated believed 100% that they were in the right and therefore their actions to be civilized.

Answer 4

I am having difficulty understanding your question. Foes of the US or not, it seems clear by now that aggression was in fact disguised as preemption. When that which was supposed to have been preempted turned out to be a fallacy, it discredited preemption, aggression, AND political disguisery. Am I close? I'm also having a hard time understanding why anyone would have insulted you for a question like that, but much of what I read here is mysterious to me.....

Answer 5

I agree.

Look how long we've been in Iraq.

What's the cost of expenditures going to be today?

How many more of our troops are going to die this month?

The job isn't done, but we've been there for too long. We should have gone in and just nuked that entire country. If we did, we wouldn't be parading the streets today.

When is our government going to stop their little slumber parties, stop fighting with each other, and start caring about our troops instead of the people in Iraq and how it will effect them?

It's the Iraqi's fault their country is the way it is today-not ours.

Answer 6

I think that a Soldier has to set aside his/her humanity to do their jobs. It doesn't matter if you win quickly or fight brutally, there will still be death, destruction, and suffering.

Answer 7

Interesting philosophy. Can't say I disagree in theory.

But, does doing whatever is necessary include breaking your own domestic laws? And if so, how does that make you any better than the criminals you oppose?

And if doing whatever is necessary includes disregarding international standards of civilized conduct, how does that make you anything different than a terrorist?

Not accusing, just asking...

Answer 8

I am generally a pacifist and have a hard time understanding our constant need to kill each other. Organized religion, greed, and ethnocentric bigotry have plagued humanity for far too long.

I suspect you may be referring to the US decision to bomb Hiroshima. The common argument by people who support that decision is that it saved more lives than it destroyed by ending a war that could have gone on for another decade if they hadn't. Of course that is pure speculation because who really knows what would have happened had the tide of events been different.

It is hard to say if quickly fought war is better than a long one.

At least the misery is shorter for those who are affected by it, so I would have to say I tend to agree

Answer 9

You have to understand the political (not repub and demoncrat) goals. In Iraq, we wanted to overthrow the govt and replace it with a more favorable one. To do this, we need to prop up the govt and allow them to take power. Each goal requires a different level of violence and strategy. With Saddam it was more kinetic and force. With the insurgents, it has to be with words and actions.

Answer 10

as always, i'm into cost-benefit analysis.

i'm curious to see if you have a caveat that there are few things worth going to war over.

but otherwise, i'm pretty sure i agree. though it will be very difficult to get people to join you. we have strong moral intuitions about a lot of things.