In Defense of Total War

War is not pretty. Total war is even less so. But as ugly as war is, it is better than the alternative (whatever that alternative may be that leads men to war). Taken to its logical conclusion, total war is better than the alternative if it comes to that.

Total war is a conflict where contenders are willing to make any sacrifice of lives and resources (on either side) in order to achieve complete victory. It is the opposite of limited war. The cost to both sides in terms of lives and resources is high and has thus fallen on hard times. However, it is the opinion of this author that "clean" wars, limited wars, or police actions are not more palatable. War is and should be ugly; it could be rightfully said that war is by its very nature is dirty. Armed contention is the second most awful thing on the planet; it should be done infrequently. However, when it is undertaken it should be done with an absolute corporate resolve.

The human desire to sanitize war is a natural one. War is terrible and many people want to make it less so. However, numerous limited wars are worse than a few total wars. It is much easier to engage in a limited war because the stakes are not so high. Losing is an option, and sometimes limited wars are cheaper.

Politics seeps into everything including war. Frequently, politics are a weapon that an enemy can wield to steal an opponents resolve. The lack of a strong, corporate resolve greatly inhibits or even kills a nation's ability to make war. If a nation is not prepared to make total war, then it is not prepared to make war at all.

Many people detest the idea of total war as they cannot stomach to do what it will take to win some wars. War is a nasty affair and whatever one group is unwilling to do is the very thing the other group will try to force the first group to do; an enemy wants to create a moral predicament. A weaker group is more likely to contend with a stronger group if the stronger group lacks the will to take any measure to ensure victory. It is a corollary to the principle of "deterrence through superior fire power." Strength, or "firepower", does no good when a group lacks the resolve to use it.

It sounds easy when put in sterile, academic terms but put a face to total war and it is more difficult. Burnt cities, mass killings, and famine are nothing glorious. But if that is what it takes to win . . . If one is not willing to allow these things in order to achieve victory then one must ask if the war is worth fighting in the first place.