Can you really win a bloodless war?

In war, there may be no substitute for carnage and destruction

Published on November 30, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

I suspect I'm not the only one who is thinking this. As a student of history I've come to a fairly simple conclusion when it comes to war: Wars only end when both sides decide that it ends.

While this may seem straight forward, it a conclusion that seems to escape from many policy makers. Many of the problems we face in Iraq are the result of the enemy not believing they are defeated. The United States and its allies have fought a war as antiseptically as possible. Surgical precision to win the objection with the least amount of damage and casualties to both sides. But we are now seeing the downside of that strategy.

In World War II, the German and Japanese people didn't want anymore war. They had suffered massive losses both human and material. Their lands were devastated, their countrymen dead or maimed. There was no significant resistance after the defeat because the people themselves knew they were defeated. And they knew, in their hearts, that their enemy would be more than happy to inflict even more gruesome losses on them should they not fully submit.

The same cannot be said in Iraq where every American casualty is reported on the evening news. Think about that. In nearly a year of "war" American combat deaths is well under 1,000. That's less than a 10th the casualties the Americans suffered taking one tiny island in the Pacific during World War II that few people have heard of. The people themselves have not suffered greatly either giving those who oppose American occupation hope to dislodge their enemy. We face a scenario where those who oppose us do not see significant risk to themselves because we are willing to go to such lengths to not harm anything without being positive about whom we are harming.

Which begs the question, can this war really be won without the defeated sustaining massive losses? Can the war be won without our enemy's homes and towns being consumed in the destruction of war? Many a general has said "War is hell" but in this war, war is merely "inconvenient" to our enemy. I realize we have portrayed the Iraqi's as victims. And they most certainly are. But so too were the Italians and German people in World War II in their way (particularly the Italians). War without suffering invites those unfamiliar with it to be tempted to it.

During the American Civil War, I would argue that Sherman's march to the sea had a lot to do with the ultimate success after the war between north and south. The average southerner who didn't own slaves, who didn't have much of a stake in who actually won the war certainly wasn't going to be inclined to support anyone sniping at union troops. They'd seen their farms and cities laid waste by Sherman's armies (And retreating confederate armies).

But in Iraq, what is the incentive for the average Iraqi to thwart some terrorist or thug fighting US troops? If they see a team of teenage "soldiers" setting up a mortar position to fire on Americans, what is the incentive for the people around to stop them? The Americans aren't going to blast that neighborhood. So they just take the position, "it's none of our business, we're not involved."

Which brings us to the main issue -- can you really win this war without the civilian populace having a very immediate stake in the outcome? Democracy, freedom, etc. are all wonderful concepts. But on a day to day basis for the average Iraqi they are distant ideals that have little to do with their day to day lives. Successful wars end when both sides decide it's over. When one side fully accepts defeat. When the population itself has a vested interest in there being peace.

So while 21st century American warfare may accomplish quick short term victories, it remains to be seen whether it can be effective in delivering long term success. I am not convinced that you can win a war such as we have in Iraq without massive destruction. I don't say that because I want there to be death and destruction, far from it. But I suspect that realistically, winning "hearts and minds" of a people is a lot easier when those same people have already experienced the alternative to cooperation.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Nov 30, 2003

The problem with this and the rest of our policy in the middle east is that we have a different definition of 'win'. We complete an action when we have achieved our goals, and retreat regardless if our enemy really believes that they have been defeated. In essence, we just chase them away. "Chasing" isn't an act of finality, it is a game of tag wherein you invite the other party to chase you back, again and again.

Iraq must be made to understand that the war has been lost, or they will continue fighting it. Whatever convincing them of our victory there entails must be done, regardless if it is more than is necessary to convince ourselves or the UN. The Iraqi people, and militant Islam in general, must understand what the Axis powers after WWII understood, that this is a new era and like it or not they simply cannot revert to past behavior. If the rest of the world wishes to harbor or coddle terrorists, then it should suck, hard, for the rest of the world. Allies are not agreed upon on paper, they are defined by their actions.

After 30 years of shameful cowardice in Somalia, Iran, Lebanon, etc., I am solidly in favor of less restraint. We aren't fighting this war for France or the UN, we are fighting it for our own interests. I feel no shame in that. For that reason I think we need to stop catering to bystanders and finish, decisively, the wars we enter into.

joetheblow

on Dec 01, 2003

Not to sure about this one.

I could say Palestine is a good example of destruction and continued violence. Israel could go all out, but in the end would the enemy want to give up or be more emboldened by the action taken on them?

I will say that the force used at the start of the conflict is insufficient. More was needed to 'quiet' those or in your words (paraphrasing) let them know that they lost.

Obviously, the planning of keeping the peace was not thought out and we are paying for it now. So are the Iraqis.

Now there should be more of a focus on communities. Now it isn't about blasting 'them' to smithereens. It now a battle of winning the trust of the community. Terrorists are won and lost by the support/ignorance/apathy/fear of the community.

In effect, terrorist are a different type of criminal. To stop a criminal, you need the help of the community. We should have known that going in and made real preparation for community interaction and building of trust. I would have done all I could for the civilians while at the same time be very strict on how things will be done until we can leave.

The Sunni Triangle as it is called should have been quieted, particularly the home of Saddam. When it became clear that most of the resistance was there, a camp should have been formed. Total control, no weapons. Once done you can open it up.

Now the violence is spreading. I do not know how much the US government is talking to the people of Iraq and telling them what is going on and why. I have a feeling it is not much.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2003

Joe: Israel's enemies in Palestine aren't *in* Palestine. For Israel to defeat their enemies they would have to attack the neighboring nations that harbor the real Palestinian 'resistance', i.e. the guys who make big bucks while the conflict continues. Terrorism is business.

Neither Israel nor the US seems willing to break the kind of eggs it takes to stop the terrorist business entities from creating chaos. Until we do, every time there is peace some terrorist fund-raiser will demand a bomb be set off to prove the fat cat's money is well spent. It diverts the attention from all the wealth that is funneled off to line the pockets of 'terrorist' profiteers that really don't care about the conflict. That has now moved into Iraq. In Palestine, like Iraq, the common people are just pawns. They go where the wind blows. When terrorists are handing them cash and their corrupt, well-paid clerics are screaming jihad, they'll obey.

Until we make these people understand we won't tolerate this kind of garbage, they'll continue dishing it out.

Alex Becherer

on Dec 01, 2003

"I am not convinced that you can win a war such as we have in Iraq without massive destruction. I don't say that because I want there to be death and destruction, far from it. But I suspect that realistically, winning "hearts and minds" of a people is a lot easier when those same people have already experienced the alternative to cooperation."

isn´t that exactly what the Russians do in Chechnya since 10 years? does it work?

"When terrorists are handing them cash and their corrupt, well-paid clerics are screaming jihad, they'll obey."

that´s a little too simple. they don´t hate without a reason as you know well. take away those reasons and give people a chance to live a relatively normal life and the terrorists will become isolated. right now they can move in the population like fish in the water.

Solitair

on Dec 01, 2003

Sorry Draginol, I was in agreement till I reached the word 'teenagers'. That's very offensive suggesting that the enemy are just kids. Perhaps you didn't mean this, but I've seen no suggestion and certainly no proof on any reports that the Iraqi resistance is made up of teenagers. You are aware that the US has one of the lowest age requirements of any western army?

No where the US screwed up was in it's plans for after the war. Or lack of plans. They should have had an immediate Iraqi government which they could then gradually transfer power to, with an election planned for a fixed date in the future. They should have also had internation agreement and supprot on this. The UN offered this before the war was even over but the US refused as it did nto want to relinquish any control to the UN. A multinational force under UN mandate helping keep the peace for an interim Iraqi government would have been far more stable.

This format worked in the Balkans. Perhaps America should have learnt from that.

Paul.

webmastah

on Dec 02, 2003

no, no you cant. no other comments

webmastah

on Dec 02, 2003

oh, and there are teenagers fighting there. i am a teenager and i know taht if someone invaded my country, and i was led to believe that they were the bad guy, i would fight, hell yeah!!! the reason teenagers fight is ccuz of bravado. anyway, gotta go.

Solitair

on Dec 03, 2003

Thinking about this topic a bit further I suppose a lot hangs on the word win.

What was the US trying to accomplish?

- remove Saddam?
- control Iraqi Oil?
- form a stable Democracy?
- defeat terrorists?
- remove Weapons of Mass Destruction?

I suppose a bloodless war can indeed be won if your objectives are straight forward. The 1st Gulf War was won as it's primary objective was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Any objective which requires the occupation of the conquered terroritory however is unlikely to be bloodless.

Paul.

webmastah

on Dec 03, 2003

number 2 and number 5 and maybe number 4

webmastah

on Dec 03, 2003

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!