War is War

[Michael C]

The phrase "war is war" seems to pop up on this forum in a lot of conversations, and it started getting to me. I didn't exactly know what it means, so I did research to try to debunk that phrase as much as possible. Since SWJ inspired me on that topic, I decided to post the links on here so the SWJ community could comment.

Who Thinks War is War?
Why War is War is Bad Rhetoric?

I will continue posting on this topic, but I am interested in other opinions. My question is, who on this forum thinks "war is war"? And if you do, what does that mean? And how does that help the current soldiers?

[Ron Humphrey]

who thinks war is war?
why war is war is bad rhetoric?

i will continue posting on this topic, but i am interested in other opinions. My question is, who on this forum thinks "war is war"? And if you do, what does that mean? And how does that help the current soldiers?

wilf :d

[SJPONeill]

Having a busy afternoon so have just scanned the content of the two links - tend to agree with your stance and will follow discussion here with interest...I've also just drafted an article for C4ISR Journal on an aspect of this topic - if they don't pick it up, I'll post it here...

[jmm99]

War is war under Hague. If a war exists, certain legal rules apply.

Armed conflict is armed conflict under Geneva. If an armed conflict exists, certain legal rules apply.

To some, "war" (and perhaps "armed conflict" - neither defined exactly as I have defined them in two sentences) includes certain basic military principles - whereas warfare (literally, the conduct or journey iinto war) varies over the ages. That is what I glean from Wilf.

That is not what I define in the first two sentences, which are in themselves not subject to reasonable argument ....

But, as as to the "certain" rules that do apply and their interpretation in a given set of facts, we have plenty of legal arguments

Regards

Mike

[Global Scout]

Michael,

The war is war statement you often hear repeated isn't from an anti-intellectual crowd. I think if you research the origins of it more closely you'll find that those who propose this idea argue that the nature of war remains consistent over time, while the character of war varies considerably. I don't know any serious military officers or civilian strategists who claim that the character of insurgency and so called conventional war are the same. I think if you're going to challenge the statement (and I have several times, but in general, again based on interpretation, it is a rather sound argument) you have to understand what it implies. Granted there are many who simply say it casually, just as they quote Clausewitz and Sun Tzu casually with no real understanding.

[SJPONeill]

Global Scout, hadn't thought of it in terms of nature and character before but like the distinction - could you elaborate/expand on it some more?

[Ken White]

To some, "war" (and perhaps "armed conflict" - neither defined exactly as I have defined them in two sentences) includes certain basic military principles - whereas warfare (literally, the conduct or journey iinto war) varies over the ages. That is what I glean from Wilf.

I agree with Wilf.

I also read your two links Michael C.. I believe your intellectual arguments are persuasive. Unfortunately, war tends all to often to discount the intellectual aspect. You provided a Sherman quote. Here are two more:

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

And here's one from Thomas Jonathan Jackson:

War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end.

That is a historical truth. However, as a more modern General said

If you go to war, to do less than your very best is immoral.

And here's a quote from you:

To be clear, the “war is war” crowd isn’t usually allied on their points. It just happens to be a rhetorical device tons of people use about war. I think your first iteration is what most people mean when they say “war is war.

That was said in reference to this: "Is the statement meant to convey that war is essentially violent and thus death is implyed? (sic)"

Yes. True in my case at least. If you do not want violence, do not start wars, avoid them if at all possible. It isn't really sloppy thinking, it is shorthand, it's purpose is only to remind people that in any war, death and destruction, to include unnecessary and unplanned dollops of both, are BOUND to result. That should never be forgotten. It too often is...

P.S.

I normally only use the block quote capability to quote the individual(s) to whom I'm responding and use double quote marks for quotes from others, particularly if I have quotes from more than one other. No matter, here, thanks, David.

[William F. Owen]

I agree with Wilf.

Funny dat!

I use the words to warn folks off disappearing down the dead-end rabbit whole of seeing "new types of war" or assuming there are different kinds of war. There isn't. War is War. Warfare however alters all the time.

There are very many different characters of warfare, but all are essential either a form or blend of regular and irregular.

[Presley Cannady]

I will continue posting on this topic, but I am interested in other opinions. My question is, who on this forum thinks "war is war"? And if you do, what does that mean? And how does that help the current soldiers?

By simple reflexive property, "war is war." If you're asking (as your posts suggest) whether or not the phrase captures a view that violence is central in war, then yes...violence is central--by definition. If you and your adversary somehow agree to turn off the spigot, you're no longer in a war. You're in something else. Call it a rivalry, or a marriage. If you're ambitious, you might take a shot at predicting to what extent you can dial back the violence and still win, but you'll have to account for at least two things largely outside of your control:

1) Your enemy's stomach for gore.
2) The war zone population's natural sympathy one way or the other.

This assumes, of course, you want to win. Given all this postmodern yakking about people not even knowing what "winning" means anymore...well, you know.

[SteveMetz]

If anyone is interested, I discuss some of these issues at length in my forthcoming conference report. It's attached to this post.

[slapout9]

Being LE minded War is any act of dishonesty that allows you to gain some object or unfair advantage over another person or group of persons. In short it's all about breaking the rules by ANY means, not just force or violence. Trapping yourself into the "thinking box" that it only involves violence usually means you are going to loose.

[Tom Odom]

Being LE minded War is any act of dishonesty that allows you to gain some object or unfair advantage over another person or group of persons. In short it's all about breaking the rules by ANY means, not just force or violence. Trapping yourself into the "thinking box" that it only involves violence usually means you are going to loose.

Good points for consideration, Slap, in effect broadening the definition.

Tom