Which is the superior strategy? Destroying the enemy so thoroughly they no longer wish to even exist? Or surgical strikes, combined with a "heart and minds" campaign, in hopes the people might join your side?


Historical examples are welcome.

My opinion is total warfare. Surgical strikes in a country already allied with us, to eliminate a terrorist faction are fine, but in actual war, well, I'll put it this way. You just destroyed a village. You killed only the adult men, but left the women and children. Those children grew up knowing, and hating, you and your country. Now they are adult men, and they take your place, they just destroyed your village, but left none alive to hate them. See my point? Leave some of the enemy alive, wanting to kill you, and one day they will fight you. Kill all of the enemy, or at least enough that the rest fear you more than Hell itself, and you shall never again see them.

surgical as in gurilla warfare? history is riddled with examples of the superiorty of gurilla tactics but those only work if the area your fighting in is your own "turf" so to speak, The russian invasion of Afghanistan and the American Revolution are prime examples...the afghani militia's would hit and run using the mountains to hide it lasted 4 years until the russians/Soviets lost will to fight and withdrew, The american revolution is another example virtually the same .... BUT if you are invading a hostile nation a combined effort would be need you would need to use both total warfare(To Destory the enemy) and Limited warfare to surgically remove key threats with a combination of cival and propganda campaigns to win the hearts and minds of the populas of the country.

The style of Combat is really based on the abilities and capabilities of the Parties involved
That being said.. The basic Doctrine of War is to Eliminate the Enemies capability to wage War
and/or their willingness to pursue it.

i'd go for total destruction..the art of war is pretty clear on that one..and then Alexander my role model.. he used total destruction and his show of force won him Greece.
i'd say kill em all.
makes u sleep safer.

Hatter wrote:The style of Combat is really based on the abilities and capabilities of the Parties involved
That being said.. The basic Doctrine of War is to Eliminate the Enemies capability to wage War
and/or their willingness to pursue it.

Damn, good point. No wonder I fear you.

I suppose it depends on the aims of your war. However, there is a great deal of evidence Germany would have surrendered or collapsed sooner if it hadn't been unified by allied bombings. On the other hand we'd have faired far better with a more consistent bombing campaign again North Vietnam.

There are lots of other great examples for both sides. The US did very well by slaughtering the Native American population. Sure a few survived, but their culture was smashed into nothing more than a tourist attraction. Alexander unified Greece via a nearly bloodless military campaign and was generally kind to the peoples he concured.

Rome fought similiar wars of absorbtion to unify Italy, but when it came to barbarians it was another story. The killed everyone, short of those pressed into slavery. Then they tore downt the city brick by brick and salted the ground so nothing would grow. In the late middle ages, European nations avoided total war and only engaged force with force.

There is a more or less common theme here. Wars of conquest work best when you are kind to those you invade. When you fight for some cause or to punish, destroy them all. Therefore, since I have no desire to expand my reach and for the sake of this arguement. I will support total war.

Kill the All

I say how you fight is important... But who you fight is more important.
My country's(iran) history date back to 7000 year's ago... We'v been compeletly destroyed many time's during these year's... Some time's our city's were burned,almost entire people were killed, mongols even burned all books and library's... But here we are:)
with pure culture of our father's who died... But kept persia and persian's alive.
No matter what stratgy you pick:
"we shall remain standing in the course of history"

I'd say, why not combine the two? My thoughts are that in the beginning of any campaign, front, or offensive, you must use total war to take the initiative and let the enemy react to you. In the middle, however, although you still aim to destroy, you must use the stratagem of limited warfare, which means strategic/tactical manuevers to attain the position needed to [surround/entrap, ambush, support another force, etc.], with overall strategic goals. In the end, you need to bring all of your independent manuevering into a "total war" style push to [the capital, the final battle, where the opponent's army lays], and hopefully win the war. On a side note, this pertains to wars between two acknowledged countries, and does NOT pertain to any form of guerilla warfare on a grand scale.