Correct as to "total war's" coiner [*] , but ...
the old German-Prussian had quite a bit to say about "the mobilization of civilian resources" - Chapter XXVI, Arming the Nation.
Quote:
A PEOPLE'S war in civilised Europe is a phenomenon of the nineteenth century. It has its advocates and its opponents: the latter either considering it in a political sense as a revolutionary means, a state of anarchy declared lawful, which is as dangerous as a foreign enemy to social order at home; or on military grounds, conceiving that the result is not commensurate with the expenditure of the nation's strength. The first point does not concern us here, for we look upon a people's war merely as a means of fighting, therefore, in its connection with the enemy; but with regard to the latter point, we must observe that a people's war in general is to be regarded as a consequence of the outburst which the military element in our day has made through its old formal limits; as an expansion and strengthening of the whole fermentation-process which we call war. The requisition system, the immense increase in the size of armies by means of that system, and the general liability to military service, the utilizing militia, are all things which lie in the same direction, if we make the limited military system of former days our starting point; and the levée en masse, or arming of the people, now lies also in the same direction. If the first named of these new aids to war are the natural and necessary consequences of barriers thrown down; and if they have so enormously increased the power of those who first used them, that the enemy has been carried along in the current, and obliged to adopt them likewise, this will be the case also with people-wars. In the generality of cases, the people who make judicious use of this means, will gain a proportionate superiority over those who despise its use. If this be so, then the only question is whether this modern intensification of the military element is, upon the whole, salutary for the interests of humanity or otherwise,—a question which it would be about as easy to answer as the question of war itself—we leave both to philosophers. But the opinion may be advanced, that the resources swallowed up in people's wars might be more profitably employed, if used in providing other military means; no very deep investigation, however, is necessary to be convinced that these resources are for the most part not disposable, and cannot be utilized in an arbitrary manner at pleasure. One essential part that is the moral element, is not called into existence until this kind of employment for it arises. ... [goes on for more paragraphs]
CvC in Book 8 (the key to the whole) emphasized that the switch of the Allies toward mass mobilization was a key factor in defeating Napoleon. That process began in Prussia with military reform under:
Quote:
General Gerhard von Scharnhorst, the future first chief of staff of the new Prussian Army (appointed 1809). Clausewitz, along with Hermann von Boyen (1771–1848) and Karl von Grolman (1777–1843), were Scharnhorst's primary allies in his efforts to reform the Prussian army, between 1807 and 1814.
The Landwehr was one aspect of Scharnhorst's modernization.
--------------------------
[*] "total war" - 1936 publication of General Ludendorff’s World War I memoir Der Totale Krieg.
I have a far better suggestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Forget about the 4.x % figure, it's a myth.
The U.S. has much more military expenditures than the basic DoD's budget.
One of many additions that point this out:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lnx7rc The real military expenditures are close to a trillion USD annually.
The real percentage in 2010 will be about 7% (if the economy stagnates) - plus supplemental expenses.
The 'defense' spending is incredibly inefficient in the USA.
In reverse order, yes, our defense spending is terribly inefficient, no question. :mad:
However your "close to a trillion USD" is possible only if you count the Veteran's Administration, the Department of Energy and a half dozen other things as part of Defense. You may do that if you wish but it will skew your perceptions even more. :eek:
Lastly, the suggestion: IMO, Winslow Wheeler has far less credibility than Sacha Baron Cohen. He's a hack. If you read him a lot and believe what you read, you'll really get a distorted view. You should probably not put too much faith in his writing even if he does say things many like to hear. :wry:
Thanks for the comments and discussion.
I am pleased to see comment and discussion spurred by my paper written and published under duress. I appreciate the substantive comments, both positive and negative. Intent was to spur discussion...
Entropy - interested in your comment regarding my assertion that the arguments from those who advocate moving to an air centric approach to COIN is similar to those pushed early on in airpower's history (often stating that airpower would negate the need for armies and navies). I see some modern theorists advocating a purely airpower approach to COIN (like Phillip Meilinger) in similar language and for similar reasons (current public opinion does not have the patience or stomach for long-term boots on the ground). What are your thoughts on this?
Again, thanks for the discussion and comments.
"Fake" USAF officer out. :cool: