Total War

Following this train of discussion: Charlie to here and here.

The question at hand: Total War = beneficial?

Response:
Even before completely reading Charlie's post on total war, I couldn't help but think about the war in Iraq. Namely, how it is an example of not being in total war. For me personally, total war means that you are not solely mobilizing troops. Rather, you mobilize (in some sense) your entire population. Undeniable Total War has its downsides like its tendency to burn out quickly. The intense burst of nationalism is nice while it lasts, but eventually gives way to despair, similar to what troops might feel on the front lines. While I'm in no way asserting that a factory worker experiences the same trauma etc. that a soldier does, total warfare connects the two "fronts," of the battle and the home.

Could the war in Iraq have been reduced in duration had some form of total war been implemented? Certainly the displeasure brought on by having to sacrifice something for the war effort (tinned vegetables, fuel, tax breaks) would have trickled down to the cause, the war, with people constantly being reminded that their country is at war.

For me, the issue is not so much "awareness" in the sense that civilians understand the true nature of the conflict, but that they know that, to be frank, while working in a factory basically sucks for them, it's sucking out there in the trenches a whole lot more for the troops.