The theory of limited war was advocated in the 1950s, interestingly from two different perspectives. The first was based on Cold War strategy and advocated limited war to enhance national security, while the second was based on humanitarian principles that focused on limiting the nature of war to protect the civilian population. The former was advocated by Henry Kissinger (Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy New York: Harper, 1957) and Robert Osgood (Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957) while the latter was advocated by international organizations like the International Committee for Red Cross (ICRC) (Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, 1956)
At present that there is no systematic theory on limited war, as it was advocated by different people employing different strategies to achieve different goals. The following highlights some important aspects of limited war.
Limited War as a National Strategy to Enhance Security Interests
Limited War was advocated as a policy option to secure the national interests of the
United States
, as the security experts in the
US
during the 1950s realized that both the
US
and the former
Soviet Union
had nuclear weapons and the technology to totally destroy each other if an unlimited war option was pursued. Thus the Limited War theory is premised on the presence/possession of weapons and technology capable of causing equal damage to both the adversaries. In other words, limited wars can only be fought between two equal adversaries in terms of military power, which should not only be of equal size, but should also be capable of causing unacceptable damage to each other. This view postulates the possession of weapons of mass destruction by both adversaries as a pre-condition to keep the war limited. Advocacy of Limited War as an option to secure the national interests of the
US
arose in the mid 1950s, after the former
Soviet Union
acquired nuclear parity with the
US
.
Secondly, the limited war theory originated as an ancillary to ‘local defence’ by the ‘free world’ against the
Soviet Union
. During the Cold War, the
US
felt that the former
Soviet Union
may either directly or through its ‘satellite’ states initiate a local war with the ‘free world’. To protect the states of the ‘free world’, ‘local defence,’ which could be either defensive or offensive, was essential.
Thirdly, the theory originated in the
US
as a measure of self-defence against its involvement into an all-out war that would be suicidal. The consolidation of the Cold War and the famous ‘massive retaliation’ concept propounded by John Foster Dulles in January 1954 did create a fear that an all-out war with the
Soviet Union
would be suicidal. Robert Osgood and Henry Kissinger, both advocated limited war as an option instead of total war, which would cause unacceptable damage to the
US
.
Fourthly, limited war was propounded not as a military option, but as a political option. If Clausewitz (On War) believed war to be “nothing but a continuation of political intercourse”, then limited war could be defined as nothing but a continuation of limited political discourse. Advocates of this view like Thomas Schelling (“Bargaining, Communication and Limited War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, March 1957) considered limited war as a process of bargaining, while escalating the war deliberately to a certain extent.
Limited War as a humanitarian strategy to limit the dangers to the civilian population
During the same period, when limited war was being advocated as a strategy to achieve security objectives, the humanitarian school was also arguing for the need to limit wars. This school was not advocating limited war but wanted to limit the war, since they were realistic enough to understand that wars are not totally avoidable. The ICRC, in its Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, 1956 advocated military operations to be limited only to ‘military resources, and leave the civilian population outside the sphere of armed attacks’. (Article 1) Thus the humanitarian school advocated that war should be limited only to a geographical area of military significance.
Secondly, the humanitarian school also urged that the weapons used in the war should be limited. Article 9 of these ICRC Draft Rules states “all possible precautions shall be taken, both in the choice of the weapons and methods to be used, and in the carrying out of an attack, to ensure that no losses or damage are caused to the civilian population in the vicinity of the objective, or to its dwellings, or that such losses or damage are at least reduced to a minimum.”
Facebook
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
