|
Edited on Wed Apr-25-07 09:34 AM by HamdenRice
Historically, wars have been a continuation of politics. Governments and their leaders want other governments or their leaders to do things or not do things. When talking about such things fails, governments have used force to coerce other governments -- usually in the form of one government's armed forces fighting the other government's armed forces. Typically, limited amounts of coercion are required to force governments to comply. The political agreement that ends a political war is typically in the form of a treaty.
The Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, the First World War and World War II, however, introduced and maintained the idea of total war -- wars in which all of a society's resources are harnessed to carry out a war, and in which, in turn, all of a society's resources are considered legitimate targets. Total wars have led to the near complete destruction of one side or the other's infracture, population, and industry.
Limited wars have continued during the epoch of total war, however, and there have been innumerable limited wars in the last two centuries.
If your question is about Iraq, it seems to me that as horrible as that war is, so far it is still a limited war. This war hopefully will end with the factions in Iraq beginning to negotiate what they want, politically. Perhaps the US will participate; perhaps the US won't be involved and Iraq's neighbors will instead be the interlocutors of the Iraqi factions.
The only rational way to end the current Iraq war is through negotiations, a political settlement and a treaty.
|