I disagree with the definition of “limited war” put forward in this article at RealClearDefense by Adam Wunische:
Therefore, a limited war is any war in which regime change is not being sought.
Using that definition both Afghanistan and Iraq were not limited wars which is rather obviously not the case. The definition I would use is quite different. A limited war is just that—limited. The objective is not limited to regime change. The only objective of a war that is not limited is unconditional surrender. The reason that our military is unable to achieve the objectives of our limited wars is that those objectives are not achievable. We cannot eliminate the Taliban from Afghanistan by limited means because they are Afghans and Taliban is just a role. Those adopting that role may just flee into Pakistan where they will be beyond the limitations we have place on that war. We cannot turn Iraq into a liberal democracy allied with the United States because a majority of the people in Iraq do not seek liberal democracy or alliance with the U. S. for that matter.
All of our wars of the last 70 years have been limited wars and we have lost nearly all of them. The lesson I take from that is do not go to war unless there is no other alternative.
“A limited war is just that—limited. The objective is not limited to regime change. The only objective of a war that is not limited is unconditional surrender. The reason that our military is unable to achieve the objectives of our limited wars is that those objectives are not achievable.”
I’d really like to tease this out, as I think on this issue you and I are in substantial agreement.
I’ll go first. The reason to go to war is that our interests are in jeopardy, and that jeopardy is of a magnitude, immediacy and intolerability that we must go. Once you have crossed that threshold, you go all out to win as fast and decisively as possible, and all other considerations be damned.. (Hence, its a big threshold) In essence, I’m not prepared to send my neighbor’s kids to be killed or maimed in a “limited war.”
Now, of course, people debate magnitude, immediacy and intolerability. We see that today with Turkey and the Kurds. Some notions, in my view, can be discounted out of hand, like bringing truth, justice and the American way. Some are very thorny issues: humanitarian concerns, Russia or Chinese strategic concerns and such. This is the stuff of legitimate policy debates.
Its not clear to me that presidents have really confined their considerations over the last 50-70 years to the vital few issues. And collateral damage rationalizations disgust me. If I’m there on going to war, I’m all in and I’m for my our guys, and to hell with their guys, even citizens.
Which brings me to why I even decided to comment. “Unable to achieve our objectives?” Sure we could. Crank up the MOAB production line; or incinerate them. We just haven’t decided to cross the Rubicon. Even concessions to adopting an anti-terrorism special forces ops strategy vs regime change in, say, Afghanistan, are moral tradeoffs A, ahem, “tolerable” level of losing our boys, vs Afghans. We obviously do not have the stomach to simply say: “15 of our guys are going to die this year, and 3000 Afghans, because we estimate we will potentially save 300 US citizens from terrorism attacks.” We, and our politicians, simply don’t have the capacity. And I was charitable, and didn’t mention that pols in certain districts have (MIC) “constituents” in mind.
Life’s realities and decisions are a bitch.
“Therefore, a limited war is any war in which regime change is not being sought.”
Any such is a police action, by definition indefinite timetable.
To me, the bigger question is: Can mankind live without war? History says no. Humans are by nature builders, with sporadic episodes of extreme violence. Today the U S faces a resurgent China. China does not want war with us. But their ambitions will bring it nonetheless as there is always at the precipice of their ambition an action we cannot accept. Or alternatively, we act in such they cannot accept. As I commented earlier. nuclear weapons are probably the reason India and Pakistan have not had a war in 70 years. Is the nuclear standoff permanent? Human history says no.
” The reason that our military is unable to achieve the objectives of our limited wars is that those objectives are not achievable.”
Sometimes not achievable in an unlimited war. You could bomb the heck out of Afghanistan, much like we did with North Korea. Kill off 30%-50% of the population. The ones you really want to kill have probably runoft to Pakistan or somewhere else. You just kill a lot of people and end up with a crappy country with fewer people. So you decide to go all out and bomb safe spots in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, wherever. Now you have the potential for world war and again not much chance of things being better once you are done. Maybe Pakistan decides that since you are going to bomb them out of existence they launch their nukes.
Much better to determine your objectives ahead of time, decide what metrics determine success and have an exit strategy.
” We obviously do not have the stomach to simply say: “15 of our guys are going to die this year, and 3000 Afghans, because we estimate we will potentially save 300 US citizens from terrorism attacks.—
Actually, this has been the justification for staying in Afghanistan. We have had no qualms about killing Afghanis or Iraqis for that matter. The problem is that this is a made up calculation. We dont know if it is true or if the calculation is correct. Maybe we lose 15 soldiers and kill 3000 Afghanis to save the life of 2 US citizens, maybe none. Maybe we lose fewer US citizens by not killing Afghanis at all. Also, note that we did effect regime change in Afghanistan.
Steve
These comments remind me of the old joke about the Japanese submarine commander with the sign on his door, “The beatings will continue until morale improves”. There are some objectives, like winning the hearts and minds of the people, that cannot be accomplished by fiercer bombings. Hearts and minds, promoting liberal democracy, and many, many other objectives cannot be achieved by force.