If todays armies started fighting without the hindrances of international laws, human rights whatnot, wouldn’t the wars be shorter, albeit bloodier but shorter?
Well bloodier wars were sure a success in 1914. And The US Civil War. Can’t see anything that could go wrong with that idea.
Unfortunately, war just doesn’t get nasty enough that we decide not to do it, expecially as the one’s doing the deciding are rarely the one’s suffering the nastiness.
Apologies for the apostrophe abuse there - no idea where that came from.
Another way to look at it.
Doesn’t not fighting conventional give the advantage to those that are fighting like that against conventional “legal” warfare.
Using Iraq as an example (This thread is NOT about the Iraq war but warfare in general)
The insurgents, freedom fighters, terrorists whatever you want to call them, bombs and targets civilians, beheads captured enemies, kills those who are just related to those helping the occupation forces.
If the US started fighting in the same manner, beheading those captured, killing not only there enemies but anyone found morally supporting them, would that end that war faster?
Why I brought this up was because during the first Chechnya conflict I recall how the Chechnyans hung live Russian soldiers in front of there firing positions, making the soldiers have to shoot there own to get to the enemy.
And furthermore realizing IMHO that America couldn’t handle that kind of warfare, the people are to pampered to be able to see those images and not cry for a withdrawl. Is that going to be the end of America or is this current conflict hardening Americans?
Sorry to throw it together like this.
And the descent into common depths of brutality has been a stunning success for the Russians in Chechnya?
I’m reading this as “Is it okay to behave in a morally repugnant manner if it makes things easier for you?” If you really think the answer is yes, I’m not sure there’s any point in my arguing.
No, greater brutality would engender greater resentment and strengthen the resistance.
You guys do realize there’s a reason we try not to fight wars like this, right?
Much better just to kill everything in the country. Of course then you have an empty piece of land but boy howdy you get to WIN!
Though I believe the Russians have resorted to some more brutal methods in Chechnya, that tactic appears to be working causing the Chechnyan resistance to back down from combat to using suicide bombers and terrorist tactics(Such as killing school children). And allowing the Russian government to succeed in there goals of no independence for Chechnya. Though not stunning it is so far a success.
What are you trying to achieve in your war? What do you envision the end of the war being like?
Do you care about the political consequences of your “victory” outside of the war zone? Do you care what other Middle Eastern regimes think? Do you care what “the Arab street” thinks?
In other words, you can win the war but lose the peace. You can kill your enemies, but what will killing your enemies accomplish? What exactly is the purpose of war? What does it mean to win?
Answer those questions and you’ll have some answers to the questions you posed in the OP.
I think we’re going to have to agree on a definition of “success” here. In my first post I meant to suggest that one of the problems with using brutal tactics is that it causes your opponent to respond in kind, and I think you’ve now nicely supported that.
The Chechnyans fought unconventional from the start, they just went one step further in there brutality thats all, would of done that had the Russians not been brutal regardless because they faced a larger conventional army.
Hell I think Americans if invaded by a massive force that we could not conventionally overcome would utilize suicide bombers, beheadings whatever it took to liberate our nation.
All I am asking is would resorting to these kind of warfares make wars shorter.
Much like Japans conquering then enslaving, torturing, killing the previous occupants of different countries during WWII very brutal but accomplished there goals.
I wouldn’t underestimate America’s ability to muster overwhelming righteous violence.
War is essentially a battle of wills. The problem when you invade another country is that the people who live there are fighting for their very way of life vs some political or economic objective. Yeah you might advocate tossing a few smart bombs at someone for cheap oil. Whatever. If those soldiers were on your own soil, burning your homes and killing your loved ones, you’d live in a hand dug tunnel for years just for the chance to maybe cut one’s head off when they weren’t looking.
In Iraq, though, there is also an outside element of religeous fanaticism (I suppose a cynic could say on both sides). Blind belief in being right with God is a dangerous thing in warfare.
The brutality of a conflict has zero to do with its duration, with the sole exception of a successful genocide.
Let’s go back to Clausewitz’s aphorism, war is an extension of politics. He also remarked that the goal of war is to impress one’s will upon another, and the purpose of warfare is to eliminate the ability to resist another’s will. The decision to submit to another’s will is essentially a political decision, not a military one, that involves weighing the military costs against political ones.
But the laws of war do not do much to assist one party resist the other. Think about it: what difference does it make if we treat prisoners with cruelty or kindness? They remain prisoners, after all. And what about prohibitions on attacking civilians? Does the fact that one side might have more civilians around help them resist the other side’s will any better? Again, unless we’re talking about mass extermination of people, I don’t think that it makes that much of a difference on the battlefield. (I now see on preview that msmith537 is making a similar point.)
Plus, I don’t think that there is much of a difference in the duration of conflicts as the laws of war have increased. If anything, the advance of technology seems to be making wars shorter, espeically in the last half-century.
The duration of wars have of course a lot to do with the relative strength of the opponents… very big difference means the war and resistance seems more futile. Russia invaded Chechyna thinking it would be a walk over… and thinking they still had a URSS era army. The terrain means that numbers don’t help as much.
Chechyna is also a good example of how past atrocities probably increases future resistance... the URSS and Russia had already made them suffer a lot. There was no illusion that it would be a political only invasion. So resistance was fierce.
So to repeat the point… you have to be careful about winning the military war and losing the overall war.
How to make wars short lived affaris.
Require every politician who approved the war, including the president and the lawmakers that voted to authorize the action (leave the veep at home to run the store, just in case), to stay in front-line units the entire time US forces are deployed–make them land with the first wave and be the last people to be airlifted out.
I guarantee that wars will be shorter. Or nonexistent.
I think one big problem here is that your arguments all sound like rationalizations. Assume what the enemy would do or will do in order to justify stooping to that level. “Do to them what they would do to us, but do it first,” etc.
Possibly. What does this prove?
Right. I think the answer is no, and I think you genuinely have to ask the question of whether it would be worth it even if it did.
You left out raping, and I think you’re proving the point of the people arguing against you by using such barbaric regimes and actions as examples.
Eh, no. That system of government lasted for millenia and I don’t notice any shortage of wars when the kings were war leaders. And of course, if the prime function of the ruler is to act as war-leader, then he will tend to act in such a way as to preserve his function. If your job is to lead wars, then it tends to follow that you will seek out war to preserve your leadership.
Back to Chechnya. If you think Chechnya is an example of when brutal tactics were successful in supressing a rebellion, then we are obviously living on different planets. The rebellion in Chechnya is far from over, and it is just a matter of time until there is another horrific Chechen attack on Russia. The main difference is that Russia has total media control over the Chechen conflict.
I find it staggering anyone would think this. There’s simply no evidence whatsoever that respect for the laws and conventions of war make wars shorter. The Eastern Front of WWII was probably the bloodiest, nastiest, more savage war ever fought, and it lasted four years. The Thirty Years’ War was as nasty a war as you’ll find in history books, and it lasted - well, you can probably guess.
In fact, this seems to have been responsible for making wars last longer. SS members faced with a choice of continuing to fight a losing battle against the Red Army, or surrendering, were willing to fight on because they knew the fate that awaited them if they surrendered. This fate, of course, was caused not least by the German refusal to obey the rules of war in their treatment of Soviet prisoners (and civilians) earlier in the war. Atrocities by the other side merely serve to strengthen the will to fight, either for noble reasons, or simply because of the fear of what the consequences of defeat will be.
What got me thinking about it was Japans ability to conquer and to a certain degree subdue large tracts of land with minimal soldiers vs population by using brutal tactics.
You have an island nation capable of exerted herself over a large sphere of influence with brutal tactics.
But yet its simplicity and ability to work was proven by the Japanese during WWII so this question is not totally without merit.
It not only conquered the lands but virtually turned whole countries into slave camps building and making there war machine work. Wouldn’t think it would be sustainable forever but there individual wars where
A: Short and
B: Brutal