will syria be considered a 'total war' by history?

>>34235183
No, it's a localized conflict. Some African nations have been at war for longer.

The Persian Gulf War maybe.

>>34235183
If B-52s aren't carpet bombing cities with napalm, then it's not total war.

>>34235205
>a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.

i think it qualifies

It's not as bad as you think. The existence of mass displacement alone is proof of it, had the evacuations not happened all those people (on both sides) would have been genocided. The fact that either side was willing to negotiate on civilian lives means it's not a total war.

ISIS's takeover of Iraq, however....

>>34235230
It absolutely does not qualify. Only one side is fighting like that. It's asymmetric warfare, not total war.

>>34235254
the evacuation negotiations came years afterwards...
hundreds of thousands remained for a long period in several large cities. most early refugees were gone in the first year- it has been a full conflict for 6 years now

>>34235230
>unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved
>the terriorty or combatants involved
Yeah this is why it's not a total war.

>>34235258
>Only one side
anon i don't know if trolling

>>34235277
you don't understand the meaning- it's not saying that everyone is a target of everything at all times. it implies that the targets of actions are not discriminated against (not separating a civilian from a soldier), and are given no quarter. they were bombed out of their homes lol, both sides

>>34235281
A "gas attack" that only kills half a dozen kids amounts to jack shit. It isn't total war, it's asymmetric war.

File: restaurantviewafterv1_2883q[1].jpg (194KB, 976x550px)

194KB, 976x550px

>>34235323
>a gas attack
you know how i know you're retarded

File: this-is-what-aleppo-is[1].jpg (102KB, 1190x595px)

102KB, 1190x595px

>>34235323
nerve gas causes corrosion in concrete, common knowledge

>>34235307
Right, but in this case we're talking about both sides military forces hiding in urban areas getting bombed out of ther peoples homes, but they want the homes- they're not bunring their cities and fields and then salting them for a dramatic example. You just don't go full Sherman.

>>34235377
I mean to say that regardless of whether or not it is technically total that (to answer OP's question) it will not be remembered that way, in any case.

>>34235342
>>34235365
total war implies a lot more than just "buildings getting shelled and bombed"

>>34235377
but they are doing exactly that
the shelling and bombing wasn't to thin their forces, it was to push them out of city centers. there were civilians and fighters targeted, well documented. and for the other sides as well. total war does not require genocide, it's an indiscriminate destruction. everything not with you is a target

>>34235307
No it means the war transgresses geographical borders and involves more than two opposing factions, for example, World War One.

>>34235365
>nerve gas causes corrosion in concrete
So does water an boolets.

>>34235427
>transgresses geographical borders
where is this required to be labelled a total war, and also it does involve iraq to a large degree

File: 1EB[2].jpg (39KB, 360x480px)

39KB, 360x480px

i think it is a total war, but it's being exercised with special caution for PR and image. it's a hybrid total war in the information age

>>34235439
>where is this required to be labelled a total war,
>>34235230
>>a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved,
Implies that a total war is not just a civil war in Syria.

>also it does involve iraq to a large degree
The war on Terror =/= Syrian Civil war.


Why are you so hellbent on trying to classify this shitflinging as a total war?

>>34235417
Only one side is deliberately targeting civilians, the other side is only harming civilians incidentally. That's restraint, and therefore it's not total war.

>>34235463
>trying to classify this shitflinging as a total war?
because it's painting future conflicts. two major powers are directly involved. they are both pushing carefully, running the line and seeing how far they can go. the war with isis share a direct lineage with aqi, and formed from a coalition of edgelord fundamentalists
>the other side is only harming civilians incidentally
oh, i disagree. damascus is at war in many more ways, much more than guns and bombs. syria is being actively partitioned, and communities of assadists were driven from their homes just the same

>>34235466
Haha let me guess, Russia is the ones targeting civilians on purpose with zyklon b and nerve gas, and the Coalition Forces are only targeting them incidentally. Global Engagement/10

>>34235529
>because it's painting future conflicts. two major powers are directly involved.
This has been the norm since the Cold War.

>they are both pushing carefully, running the line and seeing how far they can go
Just like the Cold War


You're trying to take little scraps of evidence and add them up to something that is more than then the sum of its parts when actual classified total wars were bursting with all the criteria that made them what they are.

>>34235536
>Russia is the ones targeting civilians on purpose
Are you fucking thick or something? Russia and Syria are exercising restraint. The "rebels" are not. It's asymmetric warfare you dumbass.