|
Limited Warfare Versus Total Warfare
By Gordon Francis Corbett
Limited warfare is a form of conflict comprising politically controlled open
fighting and secret bargaining. The fighting usually involves ununiformed
partisans of the sort we have seen harassing Israel for the past five decades.
It may also include formal clashes between uniformed soldiers, sailors, and
airmen, as we saw in Korea and in Viet-Nam.
It is not conventional warfare, but a politico-diplomatic way of making one
or more nations obey others. Von Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of
politics by other means. Lenin said that politics is a continuation of war by
other means. Both insights play their roles in what we have come to call
"limited warfare."
In limited warfare, in different combinations, the warring powers'
partisans, soldiers, sailors, and airmen fight, often before news cameras, while
diplomats bargain secretly.
Sometimes they bargain in layers. The first comprises the several nations
actually fighting. The second, and perhaps third, layers are made up of the
warring nations' friends, allies, and sponsors, who, for their own purposes, may
have instigated the war.
Those second, and possibly, third layers are more important than the first.
They bargain to settle the actual causes of the conflict, as contrasted with the
ostensible pretexts offered to the public.
The peoples have a strange role. They supply the money and the men devoted
to the fighting, and their politicians bargain supposedly in their names; but
their politicians bargain secretly to keep their peoples from interfering.
Those same politicians make the conflict continue indefinitely by agreeing,
in advance, not to direct their armed forces to win militarily. This is a very
important step, because the war's cost in money and in men enables the
politicians later to sell the diplomats' resolution to their peoples.
The peoples often refrain from clamoring for total victory because their
leaders tell them that trying to win outright could spark severe consequences,
ranging from an unemployment-causing oil embargo to thermonuclear war.
By way of contrast, in total warfare, complete victory is the only
objective. Total warfare is military, naval, and aerial warfare limited only by
the terrain, the enemy forces, the weather, and the weapons. They fight until
either the enemy, or they themselves, have been defeated.
In total warfare, the politicians' and diplomats' roles are small. The
politicians tell the armed forces to defeat the enemy, and the diplomats draw up
the documents bringing about the armistice, the surrender, and the subsequent
peace treaty. Then, the politicians accept or reject the diplomats' deals.
Total warfare is risky. Depending on its opponents, the country may lose.
The opponents may have secret allies, whose aid will add weight to their pan of
the scale.
Nevertheless, if our nation has to fight, I favor total warfare. Given a
choice between entrusting our rights to the slyness of politicians and
diplomats, on the one hand, or to the dedication and skill of professional
military, aerial, and naval officers, on the other, I will pick the latter every
time.
|
