The goal of a war is to win, and to win the opposing army must die. Napoleon demonstrated that. Most warfare in the preceding centuries was focused on winning battles rather than killing armies. But then Napoleon demonstrated how frighteningly effective it was to win a battle and immediately chase down and kill the opposition. Along with the invention of the standing army, warfare changed forever. We've been mainly focused on killing people ever since, because the people who wouldn't focus on that were swiftly debased.
If America chooses to support this conflict, I wish we would do it quickly and efficiently, and then immediately leave. Setting aside the question of morals, the primary reason Iraq and Afghanistan were such disasters is because we stayed. Actually, I wish we would bow out of the Middle East entirely and leave people alone, but that's unlikely to happen in the current political climate.
It's important to always remember the goal of modern warfare. When you choose to support war, you are choosing to kill other people, even if you're not doing the killing directly. There are no half measures. Either your side wins, and therefore the other army is dead, or yours is. So if you're going to support the war and endanger your countrymen, you want to win. Otherwise what's the point?
To win, the opposing side must lose its capability to wage war.
One way to accomplish that is to kill the opposing army, but that's not the only way. Other ways include destroying warfighting equipment (say, aircraft that are still on the ground), decimating the manufacturing base (thereby denying the opposing army the ability to rebuild lost capability), denying the opposing side critical resources such as fuel (why do you think the US has such a large "strategic oil reserve"?), or destroying the morale of opposing forces.
Granted, all of those methods generally involve killing people on the other side... but the implications are different than your assertion, wherein winning wars requires the slaughter of opposing forces. A careful study of modern warfare would show that the majority of wars were not won because the opposing army was mostly dead, but because of equipment and materiel and logistics and morale.
Midway is probably the best example in support of your claim. Its outcome is generally accepted as the reason Japan lost.
And yet it's interesting to note that the war was not won until their army was effectively dead: they believed so fiercely in the war that they would not yield until they believed imminent death was unavoidable. I'd like to paste an interesting excerpt from 100 Decisive Battles:
"When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island’s population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in the battle or forever sealed inside a collapsed cave or bunker. Aside from the human cost, most of the physical aspects of Okinawan culture were razed. Few buildings survived the 3 months’ fighting. Collectively, the defenders lost more dead than the Japanese suffered in the two atomic bombings combined. The United States lost 13,000 dead: almost 8,000 on the island and the remainder at sea; another 32,000 were wounded.
The loss of life on both sides, particularly among the Japanese civilians, caused immense worry in Washington. New President Harry Truman was looking at the plans for a proposed assault on the Japanese main islands, and the casualty projections were unacceptable. Projections numbered the potential casualties from 100,000 in the first 30 days to as many as 1 million attackers, and the death count for the Japanese civilians would be impossible to calculate. If they resisted as strongly as did the citizens of Okinawa—and the inhabitants of the home islands would be even more dedicated to defending their homeland—Japan would become a wasteland. It was already looking like one in many areas. The U.S. bombing campaign, in place since the previous September, was burning out huge areas of Japanese cities. How much longer the Japanese could have held out in the face of the fire bombing is a matter of much dispute; some project that, had the incendiary raids continued until November, the Japanese would have been thrown back to an almost Stone Age existence. The problem was this: no one in the west knew exactly what was happening in Japan. The devastation could be estimated, but the resistance could not.
Thus, with the casualties of the Okinawa battle fresh in his mind, when Truman learned of the successful testing of an atomic bomb, he ordered its use. This is a decision debated since 6 August 1945, the date of the bombing of Hiroshima, and even before. Just what was known of Japanese decision-making processes before that date is also argued to this day. Was the Japanese government in the process of formulating a peace offer, in spite of the demand for unconditional surrender the Allies had decided upon in February 1943? If they were doing so, did anyone in the west know about it? Who knew what, when they knew it, and what effect that knowledge had or may have had on Truman’s decision making is a matter of much dispute. Whatever the political ramifications of the atomic bomb on the immediate and postwar world, Truman’s decision was certainly based in no small part on the nature of the fighting on Okinawa. Truman wrote just after his decision, “We’ll end the war sooner now. And think of the kids who won’t be killed.” Horrible as the effects of the two atomic bombs were, the number of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as compared with the potential number an invasion could have caused is small indeed."
It's noteworthy that in order to win vs Germany we had to kill the vast majority of their army. Right up until Hitler shot himself, their morale remained high. A post on AskHistorians recently delved into that topic.
Vietnam would be a good example of losing without an army being mostly destroyed. The war was effectively over right when mainland America lost the will to keep fighting, even though we had just scored major military victories. But most Americans weren't tied to the negative consequences of losing, so their morale was perhaps a special case.
I can't think of any modern decisive conflicts that resulted in political change that didn't also require destroying the majority of the opposing army except Vietnam. And since Syrians will be quite invested in the negative consequences of losing, their morale will probably remain high until one side is mostly dead, if history is to be our guide.
The American firebombing campaigns over Japan caused massive damage and losses. Some of these attacks were as great or greater than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki with regards to damage and loss of life.
Prime Minister Baron Kantarō Suzuki reported to U.S.
military authorities it "seemed to me unavoidable that
in the long run Japan would be almost destroyed by air
attack so that merely on the basis of the B-29s alone
I was convinced that Japan should sue for peace."
I can't think of any modern decisive conflicts that resulted in political change that didn't also require destroying the majority of the opposing army except Vietnam.
In WWI, the majority of the army of the defeated was alive after the war. Likewise WWII. Spanish Civil War. Falklands War. On and on and on and on, decisive conflict after decisive conflict in which the majority of the defeated army is not dead.
Those statistics say that there were 11,568,000 German casualties out of 18,200,000 total. And while blowing off a leg isn't quite the same thing as killing them, it has the same effect for the purposes of war. The stats show about 1 in 3 Germans killed and 1 in 4 Japanese killed vs 1 in 50 Americans killed and 1 in 25 British killed. The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war.
The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops
That's just so untrue. The focus of modern war is removing the enemy's will and ability to fight. One way, amongst many, to do that is to cause physical harm to people; it's an inefficient and difficult way that is massively dwarfed by far more competent and effective ways to wage a modern war.
The focus of modern war is causing physical harm to the enemy troops, not merely destroying their capability for making war.
You've got that the wrong way round. The focus of modern war is destroying their capability (and will) to fight.
"Wounded" does not necessarily mean "out of action permanently". My grandfather was wounded November 19, 1943 and was back in action before the new year.
The focus of modern warfare is destroying capability for making war -- which usually includes wounding or killing enemy troops, but also destroying equipment, engaging in misdirection to get enemy troops to commit to the wrong place, etc. It's much more sophisticated than you make it sound.
> Napoleon demonstrated how frighteningly effective it was to win a battle and immediately chase down and kill the opposition.
What a gruesome, ruthless and inhumane methodology. Killing every petty soldier just coz he happened to be in the army (for whatever reason).
Do you really think enemy soldiers (who are also human beings after all) deserve to all die even after you've won? Seriously? That sounds more like it'd be Adolf Hitler's or the Japanese Imperial Army's idea -- not that of some civilization that has even a bare bit of humanity in it.
Human beings do not generally see their enemies as other human beings. And if you really don't care about the morality of it, then it can be an effective strategy of making them fear you or preventing them from ever fighting you again (not to mention not having to deal with prisoners.)
I do care about the morality of it. I don't believe in fear. You should earn the respect and love of the people. Not instill fear in them. Even if you've conquered them, I believe this is still possible, if you treat them as fellow human beings and treat them nicely.
IMO no self-respecting democracy should follow this disgusting condemnable tactic of fear..
I would say morality is something that is ingrained in every human being. While it's true that some cultures had less of what you might call "modern morality" -- the fundamental things like forgiveness, compassion, empathy, love, etc. and finally the sense of what is right and wrong. These, I believe are ingrained in every human being. While some might choose to be more loving and compassionate, and other might choose not to -- the sense of one being good, and other being bad is crosses cultural and historic boundaries.
Regarding the book: you can use Amazon's "Look Inside" feature to read the first chapter (The Law of Human Nature), which covers the question of right-and-wrong/morality as a universal human thing. Although written from a Christian perspective (I'm a believer), its arguments are valid from a secular viewpoint as well.
The author makes some good points, but I still disagree. If you look through history, people did barbaric things. Slavery happened. Genocides happened. In wars, the winning side would sometimes rape all the women in the conquered village before killing them. Don't even get into medieval torture devices.
This quote from HPMOR is a bit long, but relevant and completely sums up the problem:
"A few centuries earlier - I think it was definitely still around in the seventeenth century - it was a popular village entertainment to take a wicker basket, or a bundle, with a dozen live cats in it, and - roast it over a bonfire. Just a regular celebration. Good clean fun. And I'll give them this, it was cleaner fun than burning women they thought were witches. Because the way people are built, the way people are built to feel inside - is that they hurt when they see their friends hurting. Someone inside their circle of concern, a member of their own tribe. That feeling has an off-switch, an off-switch labeled 'enemy' or 'foreigner' or sometimes just 'stranger'. That's how people are, if they don't learn otherwise.
You grew up in a post-World-War-Two society where 'I vas only followink orders' is something everyone knows the bad guys said. In the fifteenth century they would've called it honourable fealty. Do you think you're, you're just genetically better than everyone who lived back then? Like if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that burning cats was wrong, witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern?"
Why did we move away these forms of societies? It's because someone listened to their inner voice and conscience -- they felt deep inside there was something wrong with what was going around them. Few act on these things, but those who do, brought change about in the world.
The goal of a war is to win, and to win the opposing army must die.
That kind of thinking is the problem. It may be the goal of the various groups in syria - but it is not the goal of the USA. The way the USA wins is to have Syria become a US-friendly country that we can trade with without making ourselves into hypocrites about things like human rights and representative government.
Define "win". The goal of war is to gain or maintain power. Every war ever fought was to assert power.
This does not necessarily require that those over whom you wish to assert power must die, but in reality most people prefer not to have someone else come in and tell them what to do, so they fight against the invader, thus requiring the death of those that oppose.
Other armies will throw up a white flag and welcome the invaders in exchange for their lives, disproving your point that "the opposing army must die".
If America chooses to support this conflict, I wish we would do it quickly and efficiently, and then immediately leave. Setting aside the question of morals, the primary reason Iraq and Afghanistan were such disasters is because we stayed. Actually, I wish we would bow out of the Middle East entirely and leave people alone, but that's unlikely to happen in the current political climate.
It's important to always remember the goal of modern warfare. When you choose to support war, you are choosing to kill other people, even if you're not doing the killing directly. There are no half measures. Either your side wins, and therefore the other army is dead, or yours is. So if you're going to support the war and endanger your countrymen, you want to win. Otherwise what's the point?