The Practice of Total War by Individuals or Small and Poorly Armed Groups - Essay Example

The Practice of Total War by Individuals or Small and Poorly Armed Groups al Affiliation The concept of total waremerged in the mid 19th century as a class separate from limited war. Essentially, total war involves applying psychological, military, and scientific means to target both civilians and enemy troops. What this means that in the practice of total war, non combatants (mostly innocent civilians) are targeted much as combatants are targeted. In the course of history, nation states, small armed groups and individuals have engaged in total war against other groups or societies. During the Second World War, Congo Genocide, and American Civil War among other wars, many civilians suffered and even died at the hands of combatants, evidence of the practice of total war. History shows that there are several similarities between the way total war is practiced by nations, standing armies, individuals, and small armed groups especially in respect of their planning, targeting of civilians, destruction of private and public resources, and political or religious objectives. Arguably, the one difference between how nations and arms practice total war compared to individuals and small group relates to their limit in scope and nature of equipment and machines. The Practice of Total War by Individuals or Small and Poorly Armed Groups Introduction Total war is a type of warfare involving the use of all means possible, to attack an enemy, including non-combatant civilians (Gus1, 2010). According to Gus, total war involves applying psychological, military, and scientific means to target both civilians and enemy troops. Total war can be waged by either by individuals or poorly armed militia groups or by a well organized standing armies, such as the U.S. defense forces. As the number of militias and dangerously armed groups continue to increase and commit atrocities against non-combatant civilians, questions are emerging as to whether or not this form of total war is similar or different from that practiced by nations and standing armies. However, a critical analysis of the past wars waged by nations and standing armies indicate that the wars are similar to a large extent. Similarities between Total War as practiced by Nations, Standing Armies, Individuals and Small Groups One main characteristic of total wars as executed by small armed groups and national armies is that they are properly planned. An ICRC (2011) report shows that individuals who wage total wars against enemies and non-combatant civilians plan their actions in advance just the same way nations and standing armies plan theirs. Stentiford (2002) observed that during the Second World War, the Allied Forces and Axis military both planned specifically to attack non-combatant civilians; the same way individuals and poorly armed militia groups normally plan to commit atrocities and genocides against civilians. As part of the plan, those who execute total war often target strategic places, communication and transport systems, resources, and persons. For example, during the American civil war, Sherman’s troops targeted rail roads, factories, and farms. By destroying such targets, the organization limits the capacity of their enemies to fight back effectively. Just like nations and standing armies plan total wars, individuals and small groups plan their actions as they will be executed during total wars. Several inter-tribal wars that have been fought in the course of history reveal the application of total war tactics. For example, the Pawnees and the Cheyennes during their intertribal wars fought against the people as a whole as opposed to targeting warriors or soldiers alone. In fact, records show that non-combatants such as women and children were targeted during the wars. This is evidenced by the fact that their scalps were treasured trophies that brought honor to the soldiers. Many an analyst has noted that the actions of modern day terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda and the Al Shabaab take the form of total war. These terrorists groups have been behind a spate of killings in different parts of the world. The striking of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon by Al Qaeda members during the 9/11 attacks led to the deaths of thousands of people (Gus, 2010). The attacks involved the use of passenger planes as weapons and the destruction of key strategic places and infrastructure. Beyond the destruction and mass murder caused during the 9/11 attacks, there is no doubt that those behind the attacks went to great miles and details in planning how the attacks would be executed. More specifically, the attackers planned how they would get their way into the country unnoticed, how they would hijack the passenger planes, and how they would direct these planes to hit the strategic places. The same case applied in the bombing of the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. The Alqaeda terrorist group which claimed responsibility for the attacks evidently put a lot of effort in planning and drawing strategies for the execution of their plans. Yet another characteristic of total wars relate to their deliberate and objective target of civilians as well as enemy troops. In this respect, it is worth noting that those who are involved in the wars have the disruption of civilian life as part of their mission. To this extent, they will go to great lengths to inflict as much physical, emotional, and psychological pain on civilians as they would to their armed enemies (Gus, 2010). Deliberate mass execution of civilians and enemy troops is one of the objectives that people engaged in total wars hold. By executing civilians, the organizations potentially reduce enemy numbers and the morale support that they would otherwise receive. Reports indicate that the Japanese and German troops fought as many civilians just as they fought their “real” enemies. The total war directed against civilians at Auschwitz, Warsaw, Nanking, Dachau and Lidice was comparable to the genocide committed by small groups and individuals (Chickering, Förster and Greiner, 2005). This is because the war targeted not only the enemies, but also civilians who became the greatest casualties. The similarity of the two can also be demonstrated by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in which more than 70,000 and 35,000 people were killed respectively, the majority being innocent civilians (Gus2 2010). Similarly, the Alqaeda and the Al Shabaab terrorist groups have targeted the wider population during their attacks. The 9/11 attacks that was sponsored by the Al Qaeda saw the deaths of several thousand individuals, most of them innocent civilians going on with their day to day activities. During the attacks, it is clear that there is no discrimination between armed officers, government officials and innocent civilians. Furthermore, the attacks did not discriminate between people of religious groups; people across the social divide suffered during the attacks. The extent of harm to civilians and enemy troops during total wars is never limited to personal harm but rather extends to damage to private and public property and resources. During the American Civil War, the practice of total war by William Sherman and his troops against the Confederates and southerners was quite evident. As Sherman’s troops marched to the sea, they defeated the Confederate troops who were responsible for protecting Georgia and Atlanta (Chickering & Förster, 2003). In spite of this defeat, the people of Atlanta opted not to surrender to Sherman’s troops. This prompted Sherman to order the implementation of total war against the people of Atlanta. The end result of this was the torching of the city, razing of crops, destruction of railroads, burning of homes, and general looting by the Union troops as noted by Chickering and Förster (2003). According to one witness, the destruction that followed the Union troops was as good as that that a tornado could do if not worse (Chickering and Förster 2003). Sherman’s decision to make Georgia howl was founded on the belief that the Confederacy got its strength from the moral and material support that it received from the Southern whites who sympathized with it. By damaging the morale and material resources of the civilians, the Confederacy would not be able to fight at full capacity and therefore ultimately lose the war. Just like the standing armies engaged in the destruction of both private and public property and resources, small groups and individuals focus a lot of their effort in the destruction of infrastructure and property as they engage in total war. It is evident from different examples that total wars are always instigated by attainable political and or religious objectives. During the American Civil War in which total war was practiced to some extent, the objective of the Union forces was to ensure that the states were united under one umbrella (Stentiford, 2002). The Confederates, however, fought in a bid to remain separated from the Union and continue with their practice of slavery. During World War Two, both the axis and the allied forces applied no distinction between civilians and enemy troops during combat. This is evident in the dropping of two nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan (Gus2 2010). The objectives of the warring factions were political in nature and related to the protection of the homeland, protection of allies from invasion, or territorial expansion. Similarly, in China, the secession of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom from the Qing Empires is linked with total war (Chickering, Förster & Greiner, 2005). The objective of the seceding faction was to become independent of the Qing Empire. During the conflict that ensued between the two organizations, millions of people perished. Small groups and individuals have similarly been motivated to engage in total war by political and religious objectives. As an example, terrorist groups such as Al Shabaab and Boko Haraam have been driven by the desire to control regions politically or to impose their religious ideologies on people. Differences between Total War as practiced by Nations, Standing Armies, Individuals and Small Groups As can be seen from the above discussion, there are a lot of similarities between total wars as executed by nations and standing armies and small groups and individuals. Perhaps one difference between how nations and small groups engage in total wars relate to their scope. Due to their numbers, small groups and individuals often have no capacity to cause as much destruction within as short a time as national and standing armies would. This situation may also be attributed to their limited resources. While standing armies rely on powerful and sophisticated machines and equipment to cause so much destruction, small groups rely on crude, unsophisticated weapons as was the case in Congo during the Hutu and Tutsi conflict that saw the deaths of almost a million people. Conclusion It is worth concluding that individuals and small groups can engage in total wars just like standing armies and nations. Total war in this respect relates to warfare that makes use of every possible means of attack against civilians and enemy troops. Irrespective of the party executing the war, planning is always involved. By planning their activities, the militants often draw strategies that will weaken, immobilize or otherwise render their targets incapable of acting effectively. Yet another characteristic of total wars is the massive destruction of private and public property and resources. The reason behind this is to lower the morale of the enemy and render them incapable of fighting back effectively. Similarly, the groups or individuals focus on killing many civilians as they fight their real enemies. By indiscriminately killing civilians in their numbers, the combatants hope to reduce the number of potential enemies and weaken their morale. The killing of thousands of innocent non-combatant civilians by nations and standing armies clearly demonstrate that the total war as waged by individuals or small poorly armed groups is similar to a great extent to that waged by an organized and standing army. Arguably, one difference between how nations and standing armies and individuals and small groups engage in total wars relate to their scope of destruction and the equipment that they use. Individuals and small groups are limited by their numbers and machines and equipment in causing destruction in time. References Chickering, R. & Förster S. (2003). The shadows of total war: Europe, East Asia, and the United States, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chickering, R., Förster, S., & Greiner, B. (2005). A world at Total War: Global conflict and the politics of destruction, 1937-1945. Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press. Gus M. (2010). Essentials of terrorism: Concepts and controversies. New York, NY: SAGE. Gus M. (2010). Understanding terrorism: Challenges, perspectives, and issues. New York, NY: SAGE. ICRC. (2011). Understanding armed groups and the applicable law. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(882), 261-564. Stentiford, B. M. (2002). The American home guard: The state militia in the twentieth century. Austin, TX: Texas A&M University Press. Read More