The wantonness of waging a Total War
Posted on January. 16. 2021
Issue #1764, January 15 – 21, 2021
By Z. S. Andrew Demirdjian
“War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.”
Winston Churchill
As there are rules in sports regulating a contest between two competing teams, likewise there are rules of engagement in warfare, which constitute military orders that soldiers fighting in a war are given about what they can and cannot do. For example, soldiers are instructed not to kill unarmed civilians of the enemy or shoot at a wounded man or use a banned substance; otherwise, these actions would be an apparent breach of the rules of engagement.
War has been a human activity dating back to ancient times. Over the years, two major types of war have emerged: One is called “limited war”, and the other kind is named “total war”.
Polemology, the study of the art and science of war, defines “limited war” as the kind of war wherein the two military warring sides focus on destroying the army, weapons, and military reserves of the opposite side.
On the other hand, “total war” is the type of war in which the military command tries to crush the army, weapons, and military reserves of the enemy —plus attempts to destroy civilians, their homes, infrastructure, economy, and cultural artifacts of the adversary —including committing genocide. Thus, in a total war, one side or both sides try to annihilate the entire enemy’s country to prevent it from rising from the ashes to present the victor with future challenges.
Furthermore, total war is mainly characterized by the lack of distinction between fighting lawful combatants and civilians. In total war, there is also no limit on the type of weapons used and biological, chemical, nuclear, and other weapons of mass destruction may be unleashed.
Now, let us delve into the annals of history and briefly find some examples of “total war” waged on the enemy. Additionally, let us appraise and classify the most recent war in 2020 between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Artsakh Forces (Nagorno-Karabakh).
The quintessential example of a total war waged in Medieval Times is by Genghis Khan who followed a strategy of wantonness of cruelty. One of the best examples of Khan’s use of this type of warfare is his largest invasion against the vast Khwarazmian Empire consisting of Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Iran (of Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turkic Mamluk origin). Genghis Khan sent thousands of troops across the empire to kill the citizens without discrimination and enslave others to be used as human shields in later battles.
Central to this total war policy is the principle that the best way to win a war is to ensure that the adversary cannot mount a second attack when its large portions of population are slaughtered, houses burned down, fields destroyed, cities razed to the ground, where neither human nor material resources are left for a rebellion.
As the Mongols assimilated by the Turkic tribes of the Central Asia, Turco-Mongol invasions began in line with Genghis Khan Policy of warfare. Turko-Mongol tradition was an ethno-cultural synthesis that arose in Central Asia. The ruling Mongol elites eventually assimilated into the Turkic populations that they conquered and ruled over, thus becoming known as Turco-Mongols. These Mongol elites adopted Islam as well as Turkic languages.
Incidentally, prior to Mongols conversion to Islam, they helped the Cilician Armenians against their enemies, but after they became Islamized, they attacked Cilicia without showing any mercy.
Scholars have widely noted that the Turko-Mongol army had conquered hundreds of cities and villages and also killed millions of men, women and children. It has been estimated that approximately 11 percent of the world’s population was killed either during or immediately after the Turco-Mongol invasions. If the statistics are accurate, then the events would be the deadliest acts of mass killings in the world in human history.
An example of a total war in the 20th century happened during the Second World War. The active targeting of non-combatants including non-combatant property, the general disregard for collateral damage, and the unrestricted aims of the belligerents marked total war on an unprecedented scale over several continents.
A specific example of a total war of modernity is the attack of the United States on Japan by bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The devastation was apocalyptic in scope. Five years after this terrible event, the International Humanitarian Law outlawed any weapons that were indiscriminate (and though nuclear weapons are not explicitly mentioned, they are prohibited under this clause).
Although the scope of devastation of the preceding two examples of total war is rather extensive, but any small war that is waged both on the combatants and civilians by means of a total war are considered unjust, inhumane, and illegal.
On Sunday, September 27, 2020, Azerbaijan launched a sneak attack on the Republic of Artsakh by using banned weapons. It lasted for 44 days. Then a vague truce was brokered by Russia and was signed by Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia to halt hostilities. Overall, the truce was lopsided for Artsakh had lost its buffer zone of seven Azerbaijani regions, swathes of Artsakh’s territories, and some key cities, especially Shushi and a historical site of Tigranakert. Was this a fair war? Did Azerbaijan really win the war in a decent way or resorted to the wantonness of total war strategy?
To appraise the recent war objectively between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Artsakh, a number of characteristics of total war is used as a set of criteria. For an on-line educational study program with its seven characteristics of total war will be used here against which to evaluate as to which side, Azerbaijan or Artsakh or both, has waged a total war on the other:
- “Participants in total war are seeking the unconditional surrender”.
Most likely Azerbaijan had that in mind, for it attacked Artsakh unprovoked and the 9-point truce agreement, which was signed on November 9, 2020, has the trappings of an unconditional surrender of the Artsakh forces. Despite three separate humanitarian truces, Azerbaijan continued with its onslaught against the Artsakh forces as well as its citizens with the likely aim to force the latter to surrender. - “Participants mobilize their economy for maximum war protection (companies make war supplies instead and government does not tolerate strikes)”.
Compared to the Republic of Artsakh, Azerbaijan has established a multimillion dollar industry to produce weapons for local as well as for export use. Despite stockpiling weapons over a period of 30 years, Azerbaijan was helped by Turkish Special Forces, several generals, Syrian and Libyan mercenaries, ISIS jihadists, and Israeli weapon experts. Azerbaijan’s arsenal of weapons were also beefed up by Russia, Turkey, Belarus, and Israel. - “Participants in total war expect citizens to contribute to war effort”.
This is a common practrice. Perhaps, both sides had patriotic citizens who were willing and ready to participate in the war. Most likely, some citizens have participated in the war on both sides. However, one thing is for certain, under the guise of Azerbaijani war against Artsakh, it was really Turkey that waged the war and won it. Thus, Turkey is actually the winner of the war, and not Azerbaijan. Turkey, Israel should be held responsible for being accomplices in the total war against the people of Artsakh. - “Participants consider all citizens of enemy countries to be legitimate targets”.
Backed by multiplicity of video evidence, neutral sources have reported that the Azerbaijani forces had begun to shell and bomb civilian quarters and infrastructure, notably of Stepanakert, the capital of the Republic of Artsakh. They have even bombed religious sites such as the Holy Savior Armenian Cathedral of Shushi (See photo below).
Bombing was also directed at Dikranakert city, an archeological site that was founded in the 1st-century B.C., which belongs to the world to enjoy. Azerbaijani forces not only beheaded and skinned alive Armenian soldiers, but they also mutilated unarmed civilians in their own homes.
The Artsakh Defense Forces also bombed Azerbaijani’s second largest city, Ganja, only in retaliation of the shelling of Stepanakert and as a warning not to continue the barrage of assaults on Artsakh cities and civilians.
To encourage his soldiers to engage in heinous intimidation tactics, President Ilham Aliyev has regularly decorated his soldiers with medals and lavish cash rewards for committing atrocities against the Armenians on and off the battlefield.
On account of Azerbaijani’s tendency of wantonness of cruelty, Genocide Watch (an international independent organization) first issued the alert and said it was “due to Azerbaijan’s aggression against the Armenian Republic of Artsakh, usually called by its Soviet name, Nagorno-Karabakh.” - “Participants don’t tolerate dissent (don’t allow people to oppose the war”.
During the 44-day war, three humanitarian separate ceasefires were signed in Moscow, Paris, and Washington, DC. However, Azerbaijan disregarded all of them. Nothing stopped Azerbaijan from advancing its forces on a frontline consisting of nearly 283 kilometers.
The dictatorship of President Ilham Aliyev is internationally well know. Many of his dissenters and journalists who write against his regime are locked up without any due process. For President Aliyev the rule of law seems to be foreign to his nature. - “Participants in total war employ censorship and propaganda to boost or maintain morale”.
Based on videos from the battlefield, Azerbaijan had boastfully produced many videos in which their killer drones were pulverizing the military weapons and posts of the Artsakh Defense Forces. Vivid videos also demonstrated civilians and cities were being bombed.
Moreover, to keep up the morale of the Azerbaijani soldiers, the Azerbaijani Defense Department refused to make public its war casualties. Censorship seems to be a way of life in Azerbaijan. Compared to Azerbaijan, the Artsakh Defense Forces have periodically made the war statistics available to journalists. - “Participants in total war are willing to use any means necessary to win (even if it violates the rules of war).”
Unequivocally, this war policy was carried out by Azerbaijani military forces since they used weapons such as cluster bombs, loitering munitions, phosphorus gas to cite a few, which are banned by the International Humanitarian Law.
In addition to Azerbaijan’s large and well-equipped army, they used Turkey’s Special Forces, several generals and lethal weapons; Syrian and Libyan mercenaries; ISIS jihadists; Pakistani Islamist volunteers; and Israeli weapon experts against the tiny Republic of Artsakh with a small population of 150,000 indigenous people (as compared to Azerbaijan’s 10 million people).
For weeks, civilian areas were continually targeted with tanks, helicopters, drones, heavy artillery, multiple-launch rocket systems, including Smerch, and cluster bombs, which are all in contravention of international law.
Considering the above responses provided for the seven characteristics of a total war, Azerbaijan is definitely the side which has waged a total war on the Artsakh forces and unarmed civilians while the Artsakh forces adhered to a limited war type for their defense. Therefore, Azerbaijan should be held responsible for all the damages done to Artsakh for conducting a total war, which is against the rules of engagement in warfare by the civilization of the 21st century.
Azerbaijan, as an aggressor nation, today’s Turco-Mongols, no less than Genghis Khan and modern Nazis, has practiced total war against the Armenians through organizing an army from various sources and by resorting to inhumane methods to secure victory.
Over the course of history, humans tried and failed to outlaw injustices in warfare. Then as now, especially after the WWII, many civic organizations were established to judge cases, but are helpless in enforcing their decisions. Thus, the criminals of total war go unpunished.
While the International Humanitarian Law helped curb total war by making the deliberate targeting of civilians illegal, it lacked power to enforce punishment against perpetrators who target civilians during the war to destroy them in their own homes. In sports, fines are levied against players who willfully violate the rules, but President Ilham Aliyev’s deliberate and unprovoked attacks have gone unpunished.
To inject objectivity in the appraisal of the total war, I restricted the set of criteria to only seven ones prepared for an online exercise. President Ilham Aliyev’s war strategy focused on a total war policy involving many other wantonness, without regard to what is right, just, humane, or concern for the safety of others.
Devastated Armenians around the world want the international community to punish Azerbaijan for war crimes. That is fine, but a better way would be to ask the international community to reward the victims of Artsakh by recognizing it as a free, independent and sovereign state. In this way, the victims will be rightly rewarded, and the perpetrator of the total war, namely Azerbaijan and Turkey, will be indirectly punished for committing “…a catalog of blunders”.
Armenians should regroup, get ready and try to regain the territories lost in this war by being better equipped and by depending on themselves rather than expecting others to do the job for them.
One of the major advantages of defeat is its service as a wakeup call to mobilize intelligently for the future. Armenians are known to be resilient. Resiliency means they get defeated, but never give up the battle to somehow rise to the challenge of establishing a new life for winning the war.