Why does total war (by which I mean the intention to totally debilitate the enemy and possibly force an unconditional surrender) seem to be the norm in military conflicts these days? Most prominently, there is the Israeli siege on Gaza, where all economic development is effectively prohibited out of fear that someone might make a weapon. Throughout the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Israeli state effectively demands unconditional surrender -- insisting that Palestinians cease all attacks before the Israeli state lifts martial law or considers negotiations. On the flip side, many Palestinians and their allied states refuse to recognize Israel at all until all disputes are resolved.

We might be tempted to think that the Zionist conflict is a special case, but the attitude of total war seems to permeate the American approach to war also. It's was the strategy of the Civil War and both World Wars (with the CW and WWII involving unconditional surrender). The Cold War was infused with the mentality that we would always be fighting the USSR, even if there was never a  direct confrontation between the two armies.

For a while we may have drifted from that policy -- for instance, the first war between the US and Iraq ended with the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and a cease-fire agreement. However, over time it developed into a drive for regime change, culminating in an invasion with an unconditional surrender. The invasion of Afghanistan seemed to rest on a similar premise--that we could not be safe as long as the Taliban had any power. Even if the USA did not have to dedicate all resources to these wars, many people spoke as though it would be appropriate to do so if that were required to defeat the enemy.

 Why do we embrace total war so readily? I can only offer speculation (I'd bet that Robot.Economist would have some insight on this). Is it a common trait of humans to seek the absolute destruction of their enemies? Do wars simply escalate until they become total wars? Is it an intentional propaganda technique of war leaders trying to create widespread support for the war ("we must destroy them or they will destroy us!") Is it a strategy to intimidate would-be opponents and maintain hegemony? Is it inevitable in ideological conflicts? Is total war a new attitude that has seeped into American culture? Is it reinforced by nuclear weapons and international terrorism?

The idea that our enemies must be absolutely debilitated probably causes wars to drag on longer than they might otherwise, and end with much greater destruction. The demand for Japan's unconditional surrender left Truman with only two choices -- nuke their cities or invade the mainland. This mentality also seems to be the foundation of Bush's doctrine of preventive war-- that any ability to harm the USA is an unacceptable threat.

Within the framework of total war, there is no such thing as a proportional response to a threat or an injury. As such, I can only see two stable outcomes arising from this strategy; either total dominance of one state or mutual annihilation. There may be an opening for a balance of Mutually Assured Destruction, but that seems possible only in a fundamentally conservative and unchanging political order, which does not seem possible.

I hope that we can find some way to de-escalate the conflicts around the world. I hope that Americans pay more heed to Benjamin Franklin's virtue of moderation: "Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.".