Englander2 said:
There are various ways to discontinue conflicts, one is to destroy the opposition completely, (this is in the Middle-East practically impossible). Another, less bloody is to come to an agreement (why have both sides refused to do so, in this case?) The worst ,to my mind, (as in WW1), to keep going so long that both sides get tired of fighting and need a few years to recover before starting again. But that is history once more, and so I shall not delve deeper into this possibility out of respect for my learned friends!
Englander, you are forgetting a few points:
1. In a book by Weigley, the author argues that "annihilation" defines the American way of war. Another historian has tinkered with this concept a little. Grenier's new book argues that the American concept of war essentially takes war to the people...extirmination is the name of the game: "early Americans created a military tradition that accepted, legitimized, and encouraged attacks upon and the destruction of noncombatants, villages, and agricultural resources. Most often, early Americans used the tactics and techniques of petite guerre in shockingly violent campaigns to achieve their goals of conquest. In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements – unlimited war and irregular war – into their first way of war". This concept can be seen in strategic bombing, nuclear war, Agent Orange, etc. In terms of international relations, Americans do not think like Europeans...negotiated peace is something alien.
2. This mentality is a toughie. It leads to the view that everybody else wants to annihilate them. The Indians, as seen in popular culture, were wild savages who had to be eradicated. In fact, all of America's enemies are portrayed in a similar light. This bizarre tendency often leads to developments of truly Orwellian dimensions. The Soviet Union is a classic example. During WWII, "Uncle Joe's" troops were portrayed as innocent and noble men fighting honourably against German monsters. All of that changed after Washington took a look at Soviet activities in 1945. The policymakers remembered why they had hated Bolshevism during the 1930s. The media returned to the concept of a Soviet menace after 1947. All of this is bizarre. It also explains views of Islam.
3. The Treaty of Versailles (the British attempt to balance sane politics with the French desire to destroy Germany) failed in part because the Americans did not support it. The US did not even sign the treaty. During the 1930s, Roosevelt then starting "bitching" that Hitler broke with Versailles...a treaty his government never even officially supported. After 1941, Roosevelt presented a view of war that literally shocked Churchill and Stalin -- unconditional surrender. Roosevelt wanted to deal with the failure of Versailles and in the process offered a normal American concept. The Casablanca declaration removed the need to communicate with German resistance groups and therefore represented a revolution in European politics. Unconditional surrender (and total occupation) is the American way. The enemy is treated as some kind of subhuman until they accept American domination without question. Hence Germany's resurrection from mortal enemy to dependable ally between 1945-1947. Hence the current treatment of Iraq.
American scholars, from Kennan onwards, have long lamented these tendencies. They remove the American ability to discuss matters with opponents and they in fact lead to constant reclassification of states as friend or enemy. The examples are numerous. Pre-Ayatollah Iran was virtuous. The new Iran was not. Saddam Hussein was great while he invaded Iran. He was a tyrant after he invaded Kuwait. All of this, from Kennan's perspective, is done because the American elite doubts the intellectual abilities of the masses. They are considered too stupid to understand international relations. I do not agree with this interpretation. I think that the American frontier mentality leads down this path.
Still, I prefer the general essence of "war of annihilation" (with changes) to that of German pacifism. German pacifism avoids any responsibility whatsoever.
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511108990&ss=exc
