User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Limited Wars Are Forever Wars

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 544,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429769
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    162,888
    Points
    544,616
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,136
    Thanked 80,749x in 54,467 Posts
    Mentioned
    2245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Limited Wars Are Forever Wars

    Limited Wars Are Forever Wars

    At least that is the way the US fights them. If you have limited goals, achieve them, and leave there is no problem. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US did achieve its initial goals; then shifted to nation-building and failure.

    Both terms are important to understanding the role of the U.S. military in the world, argues the military historian Donald Stoker in his new book, Why America Loses Wars: Limited War and U.S. Strategy From the Korean War to the Present. Stoker’s core argument is that while limited wars appeal to the public and to strategists, the idea is both deceptive and destructive. Limited war, he argues, is a largely meaningless term that’s used in order to gloss over changing political aims that are never accounted for; the vagueness of the definition and goals allows conflicts to continue indefinitely, with no chance to win the peace without a coherent plan of action.

    The book makes a clear and objective argument that post-Korea conflicts involving the United States show that limited war is at best a misnomer and at worst a path into quagmires that consume American lives and treasure while unleashing destruction on the countries they’re fought in.


    As Stoker explains, limited wars, rather than limiting conflict, create the conditions in which the United States is caught in a never-ending cycle of forever wars. That makes their actual outcomes the polar opposite of what limited war is supposed to achieve for U.S. interests.


    “If you don’t know what you want,” Stoker asks rhetorically near the end of the book, “how do you make a peace that will help you get it?”


    Stoker shows that, in practice, the illusion of limited war presents short-term gain but long-term pain as the strategic inertia created by locking into an inflexible view of limited goals leads to forever war, where the political objective of the conflict is ill-defined, unlimited, or too fluid to pin down.


    “Part of the problem is that we don’t know what we want,” Stoker told Foreign Policy in early June. “If there is a limited aim, then that aim is what we want, what we’re doing it for.”
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    donttread (07-22-2019),Mister D (07-19-2019)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 229,662, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 26.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397679
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    91,992
    Points
    229,662
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    18,329
    Thanked 34,622x in 24,559 Posts
    Mentioned
    926 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The ideological element in US behavior utterly escapes most "anti-war" folks. There is a fine line between cynicism and simply being unaware. Until they understand the role ideas play in foreign policy they are wasting their time. The OP makes the excellent point that this ideological element has become confused and probably too broad to make good strategic decisions but acknowledging it's part of what drives US policy is where we need to start.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (07-19-2019)

  5. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 544,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429769
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    162,888
    Points
    544,616
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,136
    Thanked 80,749x in 54,467 Posts
    Mentioned
    2245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    The ideological element in US behavior utterly escapes most "anti-war" folks. There is a fine line between cynicism and simply being unaware. Until they understand the role ideas play in foreign policy they are wasting their time. The OP makes the excellent point that this ideological element has become confused and probably too broad to make good strategic decisions but acknowledging it's part of what drives US policy is where we need to start.
    Good points.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Mister D (07-19-2019)

  7. #4
    Points: 42,443, Level: 50
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 1,107
    Overall activity: 20.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181676
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,730
    Points
    42,443
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    22
    Thanked 13,361x in 8,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    194 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wars should be fought for the total domination of the enemy or not at all.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  8. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 544,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429769
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    162,888
    Points
    544,616
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,136
    Thanked 80,749x in 54,467 Posts
    Mentioned
    2245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Wars should be fought for the total domination of the enemy or not at all.
    Often we don't have the objective of total domination. Our problem is not limited wars, it is the fetish to spread Jeffersonian democracy after we achieve our limited goals.

    A great example. Grenada. We went in to free our college students. Did it and left.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  9. #6
    Points: 42,443, Level: 50
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 1,107
    Overall activity: 20.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181676
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,730
    Points
    42,443
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    22
    Thanked 13,361x in 8,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    194 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Often we don't have the objective of total domination.
    Then we shouldn't go to war. If we want to eliminate a specific threat or achieve some short term goal, that should be done with specific targeted strikes.

    A great example. Grenada. We went in to free our college students. Did it and left.
    Grenada wasn't a war. It was a rescue mission.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  10. #7
    Original Ranter
    Points: 544,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429769
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    162,888
    Points
    544,616
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,136
    Thanked 80,749x in 54,467 Posts
    Mentioned
    2245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Then we shouldn't go to war. If we want to eliminate a specific threat or achieve some short term goal, that should be done with specific targeted strikes.



    Grenada wasn't a war. It was a rescue mission.
    We often use military force for purposes other than a "war."
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  11. #8
    Points: 42,443, Level: 50
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 1,107
    Overall activity: 20.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    181676
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18,730
    Points
    42,443
    Level
    50
    Thanks Given
    22
    Thanked 13,361x in 8,317 Posts
    Mentioned
    194 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    We often use military force for purposes other than a "war."
    Of course we do, but that is not the topic of this discussion.

    If we commit forces to an actual war, that is to say, a large scale, sustained combat operation operation against a foreign power, our only objective should be the complete and total domination of the enemy. We should fight like Sherman and do whatever is necessary to destroy not only their ability to fight, but their will to do so. It should either be total war or no war. This doesn't mean we could not use military force to achieve specific short term goals (Your example of Grenada comes to mind), but those are not wars. We have been playing this "limited war" game for so long, we have forgotten what war really is and how to fight them.
    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury Vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda Vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

  12. #9
    Original Ranter
    Points: 544,616, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    429769
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    162,888
    Points
    544,616
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    96,136
    Thanked 80,749x in 54,467 Posts
    Mentioned
    2245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Of course we do, but that is not the topic of this discussion.

    If we commit forces to an actual war, that is to say, a large scale, sustained combat operation operation against a foreign power, our only objective should be the complete and total domination of the enemy. We should fight like Sherman and do whatever is necessary to destroy not only their ability to fight, but their will to do so. It should either be total war or no war. This doesn't mean we could not use military force to achieve specific short term goals (Your example of Grenada comes to mind), but those are not wars. We have been playing this "limited war" game for so long, we have forgotten what war really is and how to fight them.
    Agreed.

    I see not conflict between that and what I said.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Please visit my blog http://thepoliticalforums.com/blogs/peter/
    (If a post link does not work, see the archives- it should work there.)

  13. #10
    Points: 119,768, Level: 84
    Level completed: 4%, Points required for next Level: 3,082
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    81079
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    40,229
    Points
    119,768
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    6,546
    Thanked 13,044x in 9,863 Posts
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Limited Wars Are Forever Wars

    At least that is the way the US fights them. If you have limited goals, achieve them, and leave there is no problem. In Iraq and Afghanistan the US did achieve its initial goals; then shifted to nation-building and failure.
    I honestly believe that we enter into war too readily. Although I completely get Afghanistan 2 had it been handled as you suggest. Getting our troops out of a war zone has become a career long event!

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO