Let me, if you will, provide some insight from an Air Force brat on the subject of "war" and the subject of "winning a war."
Most civilians don't know the three basic ways to win a war. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Most civilians don't need that information to lead healthy, productive lives.
But military leaders do. Here they are, with a few comments.
- Destroy the enemy. This is the classic scenario, to destroy your enemy's fighting force on the battlefield and thereby destroy your enemy's ability to fight. This was how Napoleon was defeated in Russia. His army marched in with around four hundred thousand troops, then marched out again months later (after a horrible winter) with about forty thousand troops.
- Destroy your enemy's ability to make war. This was the outcome of the American Civil War. Sherman's march through Georgia was not a punitive expedition, it was intended to split the Confederacy's fighting forces from their supply bases. It worked, too, even if it took many months to finish up the killing. It was also the immediate agent which brought about the end of the Cold War. Russia and her satellites could no longer afford to keep up with American military spending.
- Destroy your enemy's willingness to make war. This was what happened in August of 1945. The Emperor of Japan was not willing to continue a conflict which had taken so many lives and which had ruined the Home Islands, so over the objections of most of his Cabinet, he ordered an end to the conflict by surrendering to the US. It was also the ultimate reason North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975. The United States, as a nation, was unwilling to assist South Vietnam against the final invasion from the North despite treaties and mutual defense pacts. America never lost a major battlefield engagement to North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.
When General Petraeus was quoted as saying
He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."
he was referring to the first way to win a war. Why? Because that's what most civilians in America and the UK and Canada think that's the only way to "win" any war, including the war against terror. But you can't plant a flag on a hill that doesn't exist. You can't occupy the homeland of an enemy who doesn't have a home base. If you want to make the case that the Iraq war was a mistake (or that it was exactly the right thing to do), you must do so from social, political, historical,
and the military points of view. Picking just one POV and running with it presents an incomplete picture.
Let me add that the general was also
not saying that this conflict is "unwinnable." He simply meant that victory must be defined by destroying either the terrorists' ability or willingness to make war. By those criteria, the war is not yet won, but is winnable. It's simply much more difficult to determine when that might happen for such a nebulous and variable enemy.
Hope this helps and doesn't spread gasoline on the fire.
