Introduction
War is a conflict of power that involves nations and other parties and it is at times inevitable as conflicting sides usually try to exert their influences on each other and the rest of the world (Clausewitz, 77). To minimize the damage and effects of wars, theorists came up with the limited war theory and a majority of them defined it as the boundary between political resolve and physical authority (Kissinger, 24).
The basic principle of the limited war theory is the avoidance of armed war and the mutual destruction that is brought by it. Several definitions of the limited war exist in the Western world, particularly in the United States. Most of these definitions were made after World War II and seemed to have focused on the actions of the US military to ensure that it did not pose a threat or the instant destruction of the perceived enemies. The major war enemies during World War II were the United States and the Soviet Union. A limited war theory is described as one in which the confrontational parties’ objective is not to seek for the absolute destruction of their enemies.
The theory also puts limits on the use of a given nation’s available resources in war. These resources can be military, human or technological. The conflicting sides should state the reasons for fighting and state tangible, precise objectives which do not require a lot of military actions. The theory postulates that war should be engaged in a defined, local geographical area (Giap, 35).
The rules of the limited war theory might include not firing at the enemy except if the enemy fires at you first or not pursuing an enemy into an area which is termed as neutral. If one of the parties wants to attack its enemy, it can only do so in a particular defined territory so that it can differentiate between the combatants and the civilians (Kissinger, 37). The theory directs that the parties engaged in war must limit themselves to using certain weapons that they may have. The theory defines the kind of military infrastructure that should be targeted by a given enemy (Kissinger 39).
The foundation of the limited war theory
The limited war theory was introduced in the 1950s when military philosophers emphasized the association between political objectives and military means. This fact was made so after the Soviet Union was declared equal to the United States in terms of nuclear power. The theory originated from different viewpoints. The first one was founded on the strategy of the cold war whereby the limitation of war was aimed at improving national security (Kissinger, 26).
The other reason for the limited war theory was focused on keeping the lives of the civilian populations safe. Authorities in charge of security understood that the US and the Soviet Union were in possession of nuclear weapons. The deepening of the conflict to an armed war would bring massive destruction to both sides (Kissinger, 46).
This fact would mean the immediate destruction of the US. This reason defined why the limited war theory was based on the parties’ military capability of inflicting massive damage on each other. The use of weapons with a view of causing deaths became a prerequisite for the use of the limited war approach. This fact meant that a limited war approach would only take place between two rivals who were equal in regard to the weapons that each opponent possessed. The US came up with the limited war theory in order to protect itself from warfare.
The International Committee of the Red Cross feared for massive losses of human life and proposed that the military could carry out its business in certain defined territories. The committee proposed that the military was supposed to carry out its activities away from civilian populations and that its activities were to be restricted to military resources. In addition, the committee suggested the limitation of artillery employed and how it would be used to minimize the harm inflicted on the civilians by war. It was determined that war should be limited due to the misuse of weapons after the automatic warfare advancement during the middle of World War II and the development of nuclear weapons. The possibility of the use of nuclear weapons was dangerous to human existence. The initial motives of a war are usually political ones and should determine the military motives and that of the efforts made by a given party in war (Clausewitz, 54).
The limited war theory ensures that political, social and economic activities continue in the course of the war. The possibility of armed war led to the creation of mechanisms that would assure the safety of the civilians. The creation of nuclear weapons was seen as a way in which certain countries would control the world. (Kissinger, 54). After the Soviet Union obtained nuclear weapons, the threats from the United States of a massive reprisal became futile when the limited war theory was established because nuclear weapons restricted the objective and degree of wars due to their destructive potential.
This fact made the possibility of annihilation of enemies of any given nation difficult as neither parties engaged in war wanted total destruction of the world. The nuclear weapons gave the Soviet Union an advantage over the United States. The theory was established to guard the United States’ strategic interests which included maintaining America’s international reputation especially for the sake of its partners in Europe as well as controlling the Soviet Union. The US and the Soviet Union possessed nuclear weapons meaning that both nations would be destroyed in the eventuality of war between them. Europe feared that in case of an attack of the US by the Soviet Union, the US would be unable to safeguard it.
The US did not also consider it necessary to endanger its citizens’ lives and risk complete destruction of its states due to the warfare going on in Europe. The Soviet Union reduced the nuclear weapon domination that the United States had enjoyed for a long time. The US threats of massive retaliation became less threatening because the Soviet Union was now in a position to match the weaponry of the US (Kissinger 75).
Complete destruction of the Soviet Union would also mean the same for the US. In the event that retaliation took place, the parties engaged in the war would only be left with two options which were to surrender or engage in armed war. However, both of these options would have their disadvantages because nuclear war meant mutual destruction while surrendering would have meant that the national objectives that were being fought for would be forfeited (Giap, 44).
The limited war theory, therefore, removed the burden on the US of deciding whether to engage in armed war or “feel demeaned for retreating” (Kissinger 20). Taking part in armed conflict with the Soviet Union also meant the US would suffer from attacks in its homeland. The US feared that it would give an opportunity to the Soviet Union to establish its communist regime in parts of the United States’ localities which would later spread and prove difficult to control. The US also used the limited war theory to control the alliance between the Soviet Union and its partners thereby weakening them.
The reasoning behind this was that no Soviet ally would compromise on its safety by undergoing the risk of armed war with the intention of defending the Soviet and yet it would not benefit from the action. The Soviet Union would also find it difficult to maintain ties with its allies with the risk of armed war as all its focus and energy would be in trying to avoid the war. By exerting all this pressure on the Soviet Union, the US controlled the action of the Soviet Union. In addition to dealing with the Soviet Union, the US used the limited war theory to increase deterrence from war and should it have failed, then the limited war theory would have created room for negotiations prior to the break out of the war. This fact would have been a better solution for the US than engaging in nuclear war (Kissinger, 33).
The restrictions of a limited war
Restrictions of the limited war theory include well-defined limited objectives, the will to restrict the use of armed means, proper military policies, a national will and ample economic resources (Giap, 51). The military makes its plans using the structures set by those at the top of its political leadership. The nature of the political objectives of a country should determine how the war is carried out and not the framework of the accomplishment of the military structure (Kissinger, 46).
The parameters are then further divided into seven classes namely the geographical area, the targets, the type and number of weapons, the intensity of the war, its duration, and manpower as well as the number of parties engaged in war conflicts. The most important factors of a theory are the geographical area, the targets and the weapons as they are the ones the parties at war can control. The absence of the factors would make the restriction of war very difficult. The limited war theory entails a sophisticated strategy made with clearly stipulated strategies with the aim of minimizing the costs.
The parties engaged in war have to inform each other of their definition of the limited war theory and the restrictions that they would maintain. Limitation of a geographical area translates to keeping the size of the war territory at a minimum geographical scope. In the case of the US and the Soviet Union, this implied leaving out Europe from the power crisis and main nuclear power countries (Giap, 42). The limited war theory used by America to justify its participation in Vietnam was faulty in the sense that its leaders did not realize that war could only take place if both parties were willing to control their means of engaging in war (Kissinger, 52).
This fact was because the theory failed to recognize the important roles that people played in enhancing the possibility of war. The biggest mistake that the US made was to employ the military as the basis of its political predicament given that its main objective in Vietnam was to control the influence of communism. The reason for the invasion of Vietnam by the US was not about Vietnam itself (Giap, 34).
This theory was of international importance as it aimed at maintaining the objective of the control of power by the Soviet Union. (Clausewitz, 76). The United States was overconfident in its war against Vietnam.The US did not consider it necessary to formulate concrete strategies and to allocate a lot of resources in the war against Vietnam. The top-ranking officers of the US military only considered focusing on the size of manpower to be deployed in Vietnam instead of discussing how it would fight in the war. A few examples of limited war theories can be captured in the Korean, Vietnam, El Salvador and Falklands wars. This essay will evaluate the limited war theory and its significance on the Korean and the Falklands’ wars.
The Korean War
At the end of World War II in 1945, Korea which was previously being ruled by the Japanese was divided into two along the 38th parallel with the forces from the United States taking over South Korea and those from the Soviet Union taking over North Korea. The Soviet Union then went ahead to establish a communist rule in the North and the United States became the South’s major financial and military supporter. Five years later, on the 25th of June, 1950, the conflict deepened after troops from communist North Korea invaded South Korea with the intention of uniting the people of South Korea who were opposing the communist rule. The surprise attack almost led to the defeat of the US army and that of South Korea. However, the United States which was an ally of the South Koreans in collaboration with the United Nations intervened by sending troops to defend South Korea.
This fact happened at the same time when Russia was boycotting the United Nations Council. When the US set the agenda for resolution and called for military support for South Korea, the Soviet Union was not in a position to support it which would have worked in its favor by denying the South reinforcement. The then president of the United States Harry Truman with the aid of Gen Douglas MacArthur devised a counterattack plan that drove the North Korean troops back across the 38th parallel and simultaneously made it possible for the US to access the North Korean territory. The president called this move a “police action” because it had the patronage of the UN.
The North Koreans also called for reinforcements from the Republic of China which pushed the American forces and South Koreans back into their territory and the warfare took the form of a stalemate leaving the defensive struggle where it was before the war started. The war came to an end three years later in 1953 when the United States and North Koreans agreed to sign a peace agreement. The division which was supposed to be a temporary one soon became permanent (Giap, 25).
This war was the first in which the limited war theory was practiced because, for the first time, the US went into war in full knowledge that its adversaries had nuclear weapons hence ruling out the armed war strategy. This fact was because the US could not engage in armed struggle with the use of nuclear weapons as it could cause a catastrophe and possibly start World War III. Its plan was limited to defending the South rather than totally defeating the North and it did not also want to use all its resources in a single war. This move to use the limited war gave the Korean War its fame as the Americans were used to achieving victory in armed war. They always did anything and everything in order to win an all-out war. The Korean War was stopped by limiting the use of nuclear war.
The United States learned that through the loss of thousands of its troops, its power was not devoid of limits and that in the nuclear era, the attainment of war victory would almost be impossible. Both the United States and the Soviet Union did not encounter each other directly in the war but by supporting their preferred allies, they somehow engaged in war. The limitations were not only in terms of weaponry but also geographically as the war was restricted to the Korean peninsula so as to avoid other nations being affected indirectly. The US also wanted to control the war by blaming it on North Korea to maintain its reputation in case it faced direct attacks in future in a territory that was considered significant. The war would have attracted international attention and put the US’s global standing at risk if it had expanded the war territory to other nations or states.
The targets in the Korean War were limited. In particular, aerial targets were restricted. No assaults were permitted close to the Soviet borderline or the Chinese one by the Americans and in return, the Chinese limited their aerial assaults on South Korea. The Falklands war The Falklands war began on the 2nd of April, 1982 and ended in June the same year. It was fought between Great Britain and Argentina and was as a result of the two nations’ disagreement over the control of the Falklands islands. The British sent their troops to attack the Argentines’ navy after the Argentinean troops had marched into the Falklands and South Georgia islands and taken them over.The British army retaliated in an effort to repossess the islands. Overwhelmed by the British forces, Argentina resulted in conceding defeat and the islands were once again put under the British rule.
The war came to an end in June 1982 and afterward in 1989 while in a meeting in Madrid, the two nations gave a united declaration although it clearly did not change the stand of each of them on the issue regarding the control of the islands. Several hundreds of both Argentinean and British troops lost their lives as well as a few islanders. The limited war was practiced during this armed conflict as the warfare was restricted to the Falklands Islands and surrounding South Georgia along with the South Sandwich Islands. Neither country sought to attack the others’ mainland. The Argentinean troops would not have attacked the British troops and vice versa if they met outside the defined war territories. The limitations achieved their goal of shortening the duration of the war, cutting expenditure as well as limiting the death toll of the army and civilians.
In the effort take over the Falklands Islands, the Argentineans used the limited aim policy which heavily relied on suppositions. However, if the suppositions had been wrong, then the strategy would have been bound to fail. The limited war strategy can only be successful under certain conditions. The first one is that the attackers have to surprise and overpower the defendants’ troops before the latter can call for reinforcements, take over the territory and set up defenses in preparation for retaliation from the defenders. In this situation, the attacked people can assume that the defenders will not retaliate making the war a limited one.
Argentina lost the Falklands War because of its inaccurate assumptions. The British had earlier not showed a lot of concern for the islands and so Argentina believed that after invading the island and taking it over, the British would not counterattack. This assumption had assured Argentina that the war would not escalate to an all-out war. However, the British did the exact opposite and retaliated. Argentina also made another grave mistake of attacking days after a small conflict took place between them and the British which prompted the British to send more troops to the island (Ilana and Bard, 23).
This action reduced the effectiveness of the surprise aspect. The plans of Argentina were not to attack early as they were still waiting for the armaments they had ordered to be delivered but the British reinforcements forced them to invade early as they saw no chances of victory if more British troops were to attack them. The other factor that led to Argentina losing the war was the fact that the British had advanced firepower. Argentina would not have employed heavy artillery in the war against the British due to the little care they had for the islands. They had also assumed that the Americans would come to their aid which did not happen.
The limited aim strategy assumes that with a surprise attack and a successful capture, the aggressor can set up his defense and leave the defenders with the difficult task of deciding whether to retaliate and start an all-out war. The defenders, on the other hand, are assumed that they cannot retaliate so as not to be underrated in the international scene. Limited war calls for the restricted use of resources be it technological, human, natural or otherwise.
Argentina chose to follow this. Before the war, it had sent General Mario Menendez to the island to act as the defense commander but when the war began, Argentina chose to continue utilizing the less aggressive Menendez as their commanding officer instead of sending an experienced officer to war. Argentina also chose to limit its human resources in terms of military personnel. Rather than sending its best military unit known as III Brigades, this unit was retained in Argentina’s homeland so as to protect Argentina from Chile which posed potential aggression on Argentina along the channel of Beagle (Henry and Hart, 13).
The limited aim strategy mostly appeals to nations with feeble militaries as they rely on the stronger nation’s hesitance to retaliate. This hesitance as mentioned before is due to the stronger nations’ fear of losing their reputation on the international scene by being regarded as aggressors for starting a war.
Conclusion
The limited war theory has in certain cases proved to be useful in minimizing costs and loss of time as well as the chance of armed conflict. However, as seen in certain of the wars, the success of the limited war depends on common interests to avoid a total war and the will of the enemies to limit their means.
Works Cited
Clausewitz, Carl. On War. Eds. Howard, Michael and Paret, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.
Giap, Vo. People’s War, People’s Army, New York, USA: Frederick A. Praeger, 2002. Print.
Henry, Basil, and Hart, Liddell. The Revolution in Warfare, New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
Ilana, Kass, and Bard, O’Neill. The Deadly Embrace, London, UK: University Press of America, 2006. Print.
Kissinger, Henry. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, New York, USA: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003. Print.