War in the 21st century -- a response

This comes in from reader Adam C., the student I referred to in a previous post What is War in the 21st Century? I will respond later, but for now invite other readers to weigh in.

Let me first thank you for your complements in the above post. Then if you will let me I shall proceed to more clarify my position upon the Art of War. I reference Sun Tzu, who is without a doubt the master of war tactics and strategy and is still read and followed in today’s modern world.
In class I tried to convey the message that, yes there should be extreme censure-ship of any war but not total. I myself am interested in the field of history and understand the vital importance of documented history. History should be documented for use by the public at all times, but in the case of war reporters should not be able to give to the public the video footage or stories they encounter in that field of battle until the material is deemed by the military irrelevant to strategy. Strategy includes the demoralizing effect that ill news has on the home-front. Meaning that if the news of an event would cause unrest on the home-front or on the front with the soldiers at war, it should not be published by the press. Instead, if an issue were to arise in which a soldier or a group of soldiers should need reprimanding and a news reporter recorded it, the military should take charge and follow its set course of action. The event would later be delivered to the media to be released at a date when the military deemed it safe for the campaign.
I understand that this so called censure-ship is not ‘right’ to the American people but in such a situation as war any nation is in a different position than such actions must be taken by the state if it is to fulfill its objective completely. If we were to have the media coverage and the political corrective nature of the American people during WWII there would be many more casualties on the Allies side, that I guarantee you.
To take it to a further extreme and to reply to the comment in which I was quoted for I do believe that in war, there SHOULD be no limits. After all, what is war? It is a declaration to kill the enemy or achieve victory over him. As soon as you start to prescribe rules and laws to the act of killing you prevent victory. I am not saying that a platoon should go into a town and kill whoever does not answer where the insurgents are, I am saying that when an objective is given to a platoon, it is the duty of that platoon to complete it’s objective to the best of their ability and if that should involve the killing of civilians or the torture of insurgents or the enemy than so be it.
You should only start a war that you KNOW, not think but know you are going to win. To achieve victory it must be done with speed and with precision, not questions and rules that must be avoided. In the case of Iraq and the killing of American’s through bombings, torture, and assignations I do not condone it. If you are in the position in which you cannot openly fight an enemy with force you do whatever is necessary to either deter that enemy or kill that enemy to prevent you from losing the war. We used gorilla warfare on the ‘red coats’ of the British and we had no problem with it. Why now when the enemy uses suicide bombers to kill us do we get upset and say that is unmoral or does not follow the laws/rules/style of war? War is not moral, killing is not moral, so why should we impose moral beliefs upon those acts unless we wish to lose?
Anyway regardless of what you think you have to look at war as completing one objective: victory. How that victory is achieved can be argued over and there are always more ways to achieve victory. However in the art of war the state must take these guidelines into mind in order to achieve ultimate victory.
(taken from The Art of War by Sun Tzu)

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.

As it seems, we do not view any victory in short coming.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted
with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand
the profitable way of carrying it on.

The problem is that we are not acquainted with the evils of war. Instead we are acquainted with the media’s perception of the war and that is death tolls of American soldier lives and the blunder’s we perform in our military operations. The American people need to understand that to achieve victory you do not prolong a campaign, you do what MUST be done when it needs to be done. That includes bombing a civilian house that 3 insurgent leaders are dwelling in. On paper that sounds bad but when it prevents 200 American lives from being wasted it leads to victory. Sun Tzu illustrates this point better.

16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must
be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from
defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots
have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first.
Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy,
and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours.
The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment
one's own strength.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory,
not lengthy campaigns.

20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies
is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it
depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.
III.


1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best
thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact;
to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is
better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it,
to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire
than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.