Method, Madness, and Morality in War - Essay Example

In the contemporary world, political and strategic failures, fiscal constraints, and the growing military power of nations globally are dictating the existence of limited warfare. Limited war entails that, the destruction of an enemy need not be complete in material trait, but lead to a poise of the power structure, in which the power of rivaling groups, results toward stability.

A limited war involves nations that are at war but weapons such as nuclear weapons are not involved. The limited war is aimed to preserve several resources of a nation to be applied elsewhere or use part of resources to attain the desired objectives. The limited war seeks lesser objectives and not the annihilation of the adversary; its goals are limited to issues such as swings in political behavior. However, like other wars, the limited war involved a foe and enmity and it is less refined than it was in the 18th century. There have been numerous limited wars witnessed in world history which include; the American-Indian War, the Afghanistan War, the Libyan War, and to some extent the Vietnam War. In some of these wars although Washington applied limited character it was evident that its main aim was to oust the regimes (Slim, 173).

Political and Military Implications

            The political description of the aims is with conversion into military purposes. It would be hard, sometimes vague and tortuous, yet its victory is truly vital to the achievement of the political aims. Key military notions relating to the wished end product such as military conquest are changed to reflect a much more important political emphasis. There exist Rapid resolution-making and military response. The successful result of such a war centers on the ability to respond rapidly to a developing calamity, which most often explodes by surprise. This would be a key dispute for the military. Organizing and maintaining home and global political support.  Military actions in the present age of precision and honesty need political legality (Slim, 213).

            The most significant issues are the evasion of victims on both sides and the reduction of collateral harm. It is crucial to maintain military management in the defense and tactical decision-making circle and uphold a straight politico-military boundary. Militarily, the greatest dispute could arise in the political unwillingness to entrust a proactive commitment and persistence. These would be to keep the authority for endorsing not just key military progress but also many operational resolutions concerning to operation and service of military resources. Political and military necessities will necessitate heavy dependence on acumen, watch, and investigation.  Use of ground forces across the boundaries could be dejected, or held up, due to fear of victims and the complexity of disengagement. Information operations turn out to be important.     

            The political necessities of the military operations, to attain and keep the ethical high ground and refute that to the opponent, would need a complete and complicated media, public associations, and information campaign (Slim, 214). This needs full incorporation and harmonization with the preparation and implementation of military operations. Mental warfare has existed as a part of the typical war it gets significance now. Limited conformist war needs to consider counter-involvement and protective measures. The so-called cold start does not imply insufficient defense procedures. Lucrative objectives need to be guarded and refuted through the spread and other ways, considering the potential of the adversary.

Limited warfare key contributors

The civil war resulted in the US adopting the war-battling doctrine of General Ulysses S. Grant, which insisted on overwhelming and continual military force application against the enemy in a direct manner while at the same time indirectly depreciating the enemy’s citizens and their resources. This was the strategy that the UAS used in the wars against Vietnam and Korea. The4 development of nuclear weaponry in the modern world has led to extended limited wars being experienced in the world today. This is the case with nations such as North Korea and the US (Slim, 234).

The Napoleonic wars were a string of clashes between the French led by Napoleon Bonaparte and some European nations from 1999 to 1815.  These engage almost the whole of Europe as well as spreading to Egypt, and the American continents. The fighting of this period was not constant as warfare was to alter, and move toward contemporary feud, overcoming the idea of war, as a rulers and kings’ sport, and drifting toward the philosophy of total war, and the nations with weapons. There was the emergence of weaponry though at a slower rate as compared to the country at arms and mobilization. As this period winded up, most of the European countries comprised of riflemen, as Britain was able to apply the first extensive Congreve rockets, in a European battle. The Napoleonic War came to an end in the Waterloo War when Wellington emerged victorious and marked the end of Napoleon as well as the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon and his wars were instrumental in the limited wars ideologies (Slim, 211).

Another leader that employed limited war was Prussian's Fredrick William, who battled wars mainly against the Austrian. He used peace terms to conquer Austria as well as Poland without applying the legal mechanisms that entailed the inheritance of land from his subjects.