On Short Wars
July 26th, 2026
In William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” he recounts the moment on September 3rd, 1939, when the final British missive to Berlin was read to Hitler, stating that if no “satisfactory assurances” had been given to the British government [to end the fighting in Poland], that, as of 11 AM a state of war would exist between Germany and England. As there was not enough time to do anything, it amounted to a simple statement that the two nations were now at war.
Hitler had believed the Brits would waffle at the last minute. And his Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop - who had been Germany’s ambassador in London (1936-1938), had assured Hitler that the British would back down in the end, as they had done in Czechoslovakia.
Now, they had not.
As Shirer recounts, Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and asked “Was Jetzt?” - What now? World War II had begun in earnest, and it would evolve into an unlimited and very costly war.
The fact is, most wars start off as something less than unlimited war, at least to those starting it. But others get a “vote.” And so, we’re still fighting Iran. So, return to the basics: there are only two general classifications of war: limited and unlimited.
A Limited War is, obviously, a war fought for a limited goal. This can be very simple: Nation A wants that piece of land over there and tries to take it from Nation B; Nation B resists. Though the nation being attacked may perceive it in a thoroughly different light.
An Unlimited War, on the other hand, is a war fought to destroy the government of another nation. What follows can also involve taking land, wealth, and host of savage unpleasantries, but the essence is to radically change another country, throw out the old boss.
Of course, things seldom go as planned.
The Franco-Prussian is a war that began as a series of limited objectives. How exactly it began is a great story, but a bit much for this discussion. In any case, German battlefield successes led to France’s Napoleon III trying to lead his army in the field, then getting captured and what was, from the German perspective a limited war suddenly became quite unlimited as they were holding as prisoner the French head of state… and the French government was gone.
It’s worth noting that the Chancellor of Germany was Bismarck, one of the most capable heads of state anywhere on the planet for the last 200 years, and the senior German planner and commander, Field Marshall Moltke (the Elder), was equally gifted as a planner and field commander.
So, a very smart, very clever head of state and an equally gifted military commander, with a very talented planning staff and a very capable army, and they still nearly ended up with a catastrophe on their hands, the collapse of the 2nd Empire in France, followed by the founding of the provisional government and the third republic. But, Alsace-Lorraine became a part of Germany. Which was not the final answer.
After World War 1 Alsace-Lorraine was once again French.
In 1940 Germany retook Alsace-Lorraine. France got it back in 1945.
And if you care to, look up Alsace-Lorraine and see how many times it has changed hands since the 17th century…
This sort of thing happens repeatedly, at least in the last 6,000 years.
Consider the Revolution. We thought it was final in 1783 - the British came back in 1812, 29 years later.
The war in Korea? Still hasn't ended - 76 years after it started. Or longer. One could readily argue that Korea hasn't been both independent and united since at least 1882, and has been in some sort of war or civil war or occupation since.
At least there’s Iraq, right? Well, US forces deployed for Desert Shield starting in August 1990, US aircraft were flying combat patrols over Iraq from 1991 to December 2011. Iran has been de facto at war with the US since 1979. Of course, the US Navy has been patrolling the Persian Gulf - Arabian Gulf since 1943.
And it’s not just the US. The civil war in the Congo? 1996 - 2025? Or 1963 through today in Katanga province? (And more than 6 million dead in the last 30 years).
The point here is that wars, limited or unlimited, normally don't end easily. Many wars don’t end at all. Winston Churchill famously observed of the Versailles Treat (1919) “ending” World War I, that “this isn't a peace, this is a 20 year truce.” Clausewitz observed that the results in war are never final.
Only in rare cases, when one side engages in a great deal of killing, might a war lead to a final answer, and it almost assuredly won't be pleasant. To be sure, there is something definitive, viscerally satisfying, about the idea of a war being over, never to come up again. But that rarely happens. And when it does, it usually involves one particular thing: a great deal of destruction.
When asked how many people died in the Korea War the average American might answer “almost 37,000.” Of course, that answers the question: How many Americans died? Total dead is a bit more: perhaps 800,000 dead on the battlefields, more than 2 million civilian dead. The Chinese army lost 200,000 dead and didn’t stop until Eisenhower hinted at the use of atomic weapons.
Vietnam? Total dead on the battlefields: about 500,000 (58,000 US), total civilian dead? Estimates run above 3 million.
Iraq 2003 - 2011: almost 100,000 on the battlefield (US 4,800, coalition 22,000, 72,000 insurgents) plus 113,000 civilians.
Iraq - Desert Storm: 292 US and Coalition forces killed, estimates of 50,000 Iraqi soldiers killed, and between 140,000 and 200,000 Iraqis killed in the uprising that took place as the war ended.
Afghanistan: US - 2400 killed, Afghan forces - in excess of 66,000; Taliban - 55,000 - 80,000, civilians 46,000 killed.
In only one of these examples did we achieve an “unlimited” goal: in Iraq 2003 we toppled Saddam Hussein. And in all of these cases US forces had technological superiority as well as “sanctuary” - that is, places we could go where the enemy could not reach. In the post-Vietnam era this has allowed the US to keep US casualties low, in fact very low. But other casualties still mount.
Further, other wars, in which both sides are more or less even in combat capabilities, have been far more even in casualties. The China-Vietnam war of 1979 (which lasted less than 4 weeks), resulted in more than 50,000 dead and perhaps as many as 100,000. In any fight with a peer the US should be prepared for very high casualties.
Wars with limited goals are politically and viscerally and often intellectually very unsatisfying. Truces, peace deals, settlements of any kind all leave room for “interpretation,” and this has always been so. Ramses II claimed he had defeated the Hittites, Hattusilish was equally clear the Hittites won. Ramses built better monuments…
What does that suggest about Iran? First, as I have said earlier, destroying Iran’s nuclear program makes all of this worthwhile. Denying the Shia government of Iran the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons makes this a price that must be paid. There are multiple answers to many other facets of this problem, but only one answer to that particular facet, and everyone needs to keep that in mind. If you think paying high gas prices is bad, imagine the Ayatollah with nuclear weapons and ask yourself how much you are willing to pay to avoid that.
But, as far as nations crying “uncle” and giving up? Germany lost 11% of its population and didn’t stop fighting until Hitler was dead. Russia lost 13.7% of its population and never stopped fighting. Japan lost 3.9% and managed to hold onto its emperor…
So far, Ukraine has lost about 1% of its population in combat, Russia about 0.25% of its population. Ukraine has also seen more than 20% of their population leave since 2022, and Denys Shmyhal (Ukraine’s Prime Minister 2020 - 2025) believes most will not return. And neither side seems ready to quit.
The main point is this: as Clausewitz noted, the results in war are rarely final.
Something, else, too about the wars in Iran, Ukraine, and even Lebanon: bombing… To give this some relevance to size: compare Iran and Vietnam: Vietnam covers about 128,000 square miles (just a little bit bigger than New Mexico), with a population today of 102 million (just under 42 million in 1970). Iran covers 636,000 square miles and has a bit more than 92 million people, so, similar population but Iran is 5 times larger in area.
Which comes back to the question of bombing. First, to reiterate: the bombing of the facilities at Fordow et al was necessary and makes all of this “worth it.” That said, hopefully someone is working on a follow-on deep penetration weapon that can go at least twice as deep as the GBU-57, because it is a good bet that some time in the not-so-distant future a US administration will need to go back and “mow the grass.”
As for overthrowing the IRGC, that is, unlimited war… I would ask you to consider this: Iran covers some 636,000 square miles - about 5 times larger than Vietnam.
In the 12 years of the US involvement in Vietnam (1962-1973) the US flew more than 1 million tactical aircraft sorties, and 124,000 B-52 sorties. The Christmas bombings did bring the North Vietnamese back to the negotiations. But, how much did it change the final outcome? And yes, we have precision weapons and all that… but…
As a friend of mine (Navy F-4 guy during Vietnam), dropping bombs on people pisses them off.
“Bombs” also includes drones and missiles. Dropping bombs on Germany did not make them surrender. Dropping bombs on London didn’t make them surrender. Russia has been striking Ukraine for 4 years; they don’t seem interested in giving up. Anyone who thinks the Russians will is, I suspect, engaged in wishful thinking. You can make the argument that Japan did finally give up - after we dropped two atomic bombs on them… You probably want to think twice before going down that particular road.
Point is, unlimited wars are incredibly expensive and will require a great deal of killing. Limited wars require accepting less than perfect answers. You need to choose…
