The Success of Limited War Concept, Term Paper Example

Limited war is the case where the belligerents are subject to restrictions. The war is under well-defined objectives and does not demand full military effort even if the belligerents have the capacity to provide such military effort. These kinds of wars are confined to particular geographical areas and the directions of the wars are against selected targets. In such kind of wars, the country can continue with its operations in economic, political and social fields without or with minimal disruptions. According to Henry Kissinger, this kind of war does not utilize the military weapons system entirely. For instance, it is evident of restrains in using thermonuclear weapons (Christopher 485).

In cases where the war utilizes the entire weapons system, it limits its specific targets to avoid excessive damage. It also does not make full utilization of other resources be it human, military, industrial, agricultural, natural, technological, or any other. The main aim of a limited war is to preserve the resources for use in other purposes (Hoyt 270). Limited war is a contrast of total wars (William 495). The later are obsolete where unconditional surrender is never realistic. The limited war parameters include limited political objectives setting for which force application has to be tailored accordingly. This helps achieve the objectives before bringing down an enemy to his knees and creating a good chance of bargaining and ending the conflict (Morton 191).

The limited war concept goes back to the 19th century. This was a time when theorists underscored the relationship between military means and political ends. Both Clausewitz and Liddell Hart had a commitment to support the use of limited war other than taking on total war (William 495). In the early 19th century, when blitzkrieg concepts and wars of annihilation were the dominant elements in the military practices and thoughts, Clausewitz was totally in opposition to such concepts. He valued, “Political objectives, being the original reasons of the war, and what should be the standard used to determine the military force aim and the aim of the effort used in a war” (Christopher 485).

With the automatic warfare advancement in the World War II, Hart realized that there was an experience of high destructive nature of the weapons in use and therefore, there was an urgent need to curb the use of such destructive weapons. However, at the time, his idea was not on limited war (Morton 191). It was only later when the advancements of weapons became more destructive through the development of nuclear weapons that he came and introduced the limited war concept. It was then that he said, “In situations where enemies possess atomic power, it is absolutely nonsense to use total war (William 495).” He also insisted that unlimited war “where atomic power was in use, would make it even worse than nonsense; in fact, it would be suicidal.” He preceded saying, “total war including the preparation, has a higher probability of developing more evils, without any good promise even in the event of victory (Hoyt 270).”

With the former Soviet Union acquiring nuclear weapons, it was pointless for the US to issue “massive retaliation” threats to the union because they also had their own and could use it against America. Nothing like threats could bring down the soviet. In fact, they were already to face the US in terms of war and it was apparent that a head to head would lead to devastating results and a loss for both countries (William 495). It was then that the concept was applicable for the common good of both countries. Robert Osgood introduced a limited war concept that helped keep Cold War “cold.” This was a situation of two super powers up for grabs for superiority. It counted that none could do any good by attacking the other because it would spice more attacks and lead to severe situations (Morton 191).

In the Indo-Pakistan case, limited war concept is soon acquiring recognition and gaining its doctrinal respectability. India and Pakistan have had a rivalry of the border for a long period and the results have always been loss of lives because of counter attacks. Limited was takes roots in these two countries after realizing the sort of harm they inflict on their populations in a never-ending conflict. Its advertisement has been advertised using historical precedents to help deliver confrontations and blood shed in both countries. Indian security planners regurgitated the limited war concept from nineteen fifties to help curb the destructive wars with Pakistan (Christopher 485). Even though Pakistan feel that there was no proper review of this concept and that it was not debated efficiently, it still has worked for them. The concept has reduced the attacks as well as intensity and soon taking shape to end the war between the two countries and promote peace across the border (Hoyt 270).

Iraqi and Afghanistan wars have been a destructive case and one that needs application of limited war. Though there are differences in the approaches that US takes on the two countries, they are more like similar in a way.  In Iraq, there is already an established government though weak because of internal pressures from the terrorist groups (William 495). It is much easier in the fight against terrorism in Iraq that Afghanistan all because of this concept. The Afghanistan terrorist groups also have established strong grounds that make it a true war and not easy to apply limited war if you have to succeed in bringing down terrorism. All the same, limited war should hail in both countries (Morton 191).

In just a few past months, Iraq has had thousands of bombs dropped in the country by the US in an effort to fight terrorist groups. The NBC news on February 4, 1991, reported that Iraq had taken, through US air attacks, a worse effect than it was the case on Germany in the event of World War II. The New York Times also had something reported on the same issue saying that, US had used a tonnage of bombs in Iraq more than it was the number used in World War II (William 495). This calls an alarm over the situation in Iraq because thousands of innocent civilians continue dying all because of total war rather than an eventual application of Limited war. The war needs a review from the US army. Since the target is on terrorists groups, total war exposes the innocent people because they are in the middle of the so-called terrorists. Limited war could apply in the sense that the US stops the bombings and incorporates more soldiers on the ground to fish out these terrorists. A consensus has always been the solution to total wars. In all cases where limited war persists, it has been fruitful from talks. However, it is difficult because both parties have varying interest but applicable with persuasive attempts (William 495).

Delaying attacks is considerable perfect in Afghanistan and Iraq where total war has been in use for long. In the process of delaying attacks, the introduction of bureaucratic policies is efficient. This is what is helpful in allowing a careful determination the appropriate response to a war by the terrorist from these countries (Morton 191). Mostly, it has been a case of fast reactions and quick attacks an experience that has been in these two countries all in an attempt to catch up with the terrorists and using total war to force them to surrender. However, limited war concept would be ideal in slowing down retaliations and making wise decisions on how US reacts to terrorists threats and curbs the activity in these two countries (Hoyt 270).

There is also a need to apply limited war by attempting to build new and strong governments in Afghanistan. The case of Iraq is different because even a new established government still does not effectively control terrorist acts. In these countries, newly established governments have a better opportunity of fighting the terrorists from within as opposed to the US who at times have to use total war approaches to get past a barrier in an attempt to curb terrorism. The established governments however, need support of the US because they have enemies from their own people for collaborating with the US. The support is both resource and skill wise. Resources including military, basic needs and many others are ideal in the application of limited war in the respective countries (Christopher 485).

In the case of Afghanistan limited war approaches are better set to hit the source that than the consequence. Afghanistan is industrially inactive and there are no factories manufacturing weapons used by the terrorists group, they merely import then across the Pakistan border. This could be a good base of argument for the US to counteract the source of the weapons rather than bomb the country and kill innocent people without any fruits bore regarding the curbing of terrorist attacks (Morton 191). Lack of security and Al Qaeda elements in Pakistan has been the major cause of nuclear theft that ends in the hands of these terrorists. Approaching the scenario, this way is better for the US than using total war to fight terrorists yet the source continues in support of their activities. The limited war in this case disarms the terrorist groups and renders them useless and desperate and with time, they might surrender and cal for negotiations (Hoyt 270).

Works Cited

Christopher, G. The Logic of Force: The Dilemma of Limited War in American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. p.485

Hoyt, Edwin C. Law & Force in American Foreign Policy. New York: University Press of America, 1985. p.270

Morton, H. Limited War in the Nuclear Age. New York: Wiley, 1963. p.191

William V. The Conduct of Just and Limited War. New York: Praeger, 1981. p.495