Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
However, what concerns me about "war is war" is something that MarcT stated in a post: that this meme will be taken by people less sophisticated than the people who populate this forum and be used to justify the application of total war in a place where it shouldn't be used.
Fallacious argument IMO; that's alway's been true. It was before CvC or anyone else said or wrote it and will be true in the future of people who have not seen or heard it. People, amazingly enough, even advocate small wars where they shouldn't be used...
However, even if there were no insurgencies defeated that resulted in a net benefit to the big power involved 20 years post (I think there have been), that ignores what benefits may have accrued to the big power at the 5, 10 and 15 year point. Those may have been substantial.
And they are? One years, five years to any limit; name a few.
I don't understand why COIN oriented training leads to the belief that an opponent is deserving of better treatment than any other opponent. If they are fighting you, you destroy them and if they have surrendered, you treat them decently as in any other conflict. Why would there be hesitation to act against the opponent? If there was, wouldn't that be a result of improper training and leadership?
Yes, it would be the result of improper training that over emphasizes the 'hearts and mind' aspects of war in a COIN context. That is done by poor trainers to teach people not to be trigger happy. A better solution is to train fire control and fire discipline which we do not do at all well. We have a dangerous tendency to substitute bad and inappropriate but easy to do training in an attempt to compensate for poor training that is difficult or expensive. Even in the most benign 'COIN' (I am really beginning to dislike that term...) environment, loss of the combat edge is dangerous and excessive (note that word) concern for others can lead to such loss. As I'm afraid we'll see in Iraq before long.
Sometimes I think this fussing about what it is exactly gets in the way.
It's not fussing, it's just disagreement about ways and means and over terms that don't lead people astray. You and others worry about "war is war." I don't I worry about "COIN tactics," you and other do not. No real right or wrong there, just differences of opinion. That should be okay. the same kinds of conversations take place in bars, schools, barracks and in the field all over the world...
In any event, people will suffer and die and souls will be broken...

I'll see your Sherman and raise you a Forrest: "War is fighting and fighting is killing."
Which way are you going to go, With Forest or worrying about suffering?

Can't have it both ways. Don't want suffering and dieing, don't go to war. Go -- and that will happen. Go and do it half baked by being excessively nice (as opposed to being as decent as is sensible) and it will take far longer and extend the suffering and dieing to more people including civilians.

There is no nice way...