Reply #83: True enough

[GA_ArmyVet]

but we dint lose battles or near as many lives..Winning a war is more than battles..it takes a combination of things including the will of the people of the country. I am not arguing that we should continue the wars we are in, or even that we should be there in the first place. I was simply stating the choices that I saw and the possible consequence of each choice, not advocating either position.

That not withstanding... I would still rather be able to win the battles and perhaps deter most sane people from attacking us to begin with at least until the world comes to its senses and ends war altogether.

I agree with you about most of your post.

One of the problems in trying to win a war is the way we have fought those wars you mentioned. From a purely military and theoretical point of view, in order to win a war you must enter into total unrestricted warfare, you have to remove the will of the enemy (civilians, military and government) to continue to fight and force them to sue for peace. Sherman knew this in the Civil War. Grant cut him loose to do it. His method while effective was brutal, and would probably be considered a war crime in modern times. In the recent wars we have been in, Korea and forward, there was no clear cut threat to the US people, and therefore the country was not fighting for its survival, in order to maintain a modicum of public support, restricted warfare becomes the order of the day against an enemy who is fighting unrestricted warfare. They know that with each US death, public support is eroded bit by bit, while their own support increases add that to the fact that able to hide in places which we can not or will not attack.

I know it sounds cruel to say, but at times I wonder if "civilized" warfare under the Geneva Conventions has caused more suffering by prolonging war and making it morally acceptable. I wonder if it were allowed to be as grotesque, cruel and brutal as possible if people and governments would actually hesitate to go to war. ( probably not, but I can hope)

As I said before, I was looking at this from an objective standpoint not just our current war(s). I do believe having a strong military does indeed deter potential threats to our survival and keeps us from having to fight that conflict since no one in their right mind would consider that attack knowing it would mean their destruction.

All that being said, I don't believe total war is the answer in a war of choice.

I do agree with you that a draft or mandatory service would make force the country to become more aware and perhaps more judicious in the use of our military might. (as an added bonus, you will meet some really good people from all over the country)

Sorry for the long post, but I am a history major and I tend to lecture before I can catch myself.