PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Summer 2004

In Praise of Attrition:

A piece from the journal of the Army War College argues that the US military has gone too far to avoid killing people. It's getting in the way of victory, the author suggests...

It's essential to purge our minds of the cliched images the term "war of attrition" evokes. Certainly, we do not and will not seek wars in which vast casualties are equally distributed between our own forces and the enemy's. But a one-sided war of attrition, enabled by our broad range of superior capabilities, is a strong model for a 21st-century American way of war....

Precision weapons unquestionably have value, but they are expensive and do not cause adequate destruction to impress a hardened enemy. The first time a guided bomb hits the deputy's desk, it will get his chief's attention, but if precision weaponry fails both to annihilate the enemy's leadership and to somehow convince the army and population it has been defeated, it leaves the job to the soldier once again. Those who live in the technological clouds simply do not grasp the importance of graphic, extensive destruction in convincing an opponent of his defeat.

Focus on killing the enemy. With fires. With maneuver. With sticks and stones and polyunsaturated fats. In a disciplined military, aggressive leaders and troops can always be restrained. But it's difficult to persuade leaders schooled in caution that their mission is not to keep an entire corps' tanks on line, but to rip the enemy's heart out.

The explanation of why and how this works begins with the condottiere and passes through Napoleon, the Fraco-Prussian war, both declared world wars, the Cold War and Desert Storm. It then examines the new war at length. Just one quote of many worth considering:

[W]e shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. This is sophomoric nonsense. The surest way to swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance. Success breeds success. Everybody loves a winner. The cliches exist because they're true. Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity.

It's not exactly nonsense--particularly in tribal societies, there is a duty to vengence that does create new enemies. Still, if you find yourself in a war with such a culture, there is no way out except victory. The creation of certain numbers of terrorists is a price you have to accept, because you really must destroy the ones who exist already. You just also have to destroy those of their cousins who feel they must have revenge upon you.

I think the author is on to something, although I depart from him on other points as well. It's an argument worth considering, and I'm glad to see that the Army War College is able to voice these sorts of opinions and debate them.