All Else Being the Same, a Moral Position in War is Untenable

Got to say, I’ve been looking forward to this debate with Douglas MacArthur here, and would like to quickly thank anyone who would also like to show an interest to this debate by contributing their own thoughts and opinions on the matter in the voters/comments section. In his all-important military treatise Von Kreig (On War) by Carl Von Clausewitz, the great Prussian military theorist once hypnotized that “war is the continuation of policy and politics by other means” and that war is ultimately an “act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” Yet, inside this much acclaimed and substantiated piece of work is a monster called absolute war. Absolute war has been described by Clausewitz as armed conflict that has ascended out of control and is no longer “directed or constrained by political motives or concerns” in which laws, morality, and rules of engagement are thrown speedily out the window fast in exchange for an epic animal like fight for survival. Clausewitz, to his credit however, reasoned that this type of survival warfare was a "logical fantasy” and that in the real world, no war could ever be fought in practice without political objectives or moral interference. I believe wrichcirw has created a fair enough scenario which will –in addition to his Round 1 objectives- put Clausewitz’s absolute war theory to a suprisingly good test. For my part, I will be attempting to identify an advantage to wartime morality (to offset the cost of moral fiber) or demonstrate though military movements that it is impossible not to have a realistic war scenario without some kind of moral constraint– thereby still preserving our morality in the face of a overwhelming wartime need to survive, and our rational need to win. 1.) Politics by other means: http://oll.libertyfund.org... 2.) Absoulte War: http://en.wikipedia.org... Thoughts & Variables for both sides to consider throughout. I recognize that this scenario has been designed to eliminate as many strategic military / national advantages and disadvantages as possible by paring two equal countries on near identical military footing. This scenario thus starts with perfect ISR for both sides and identical military capabilities (which I assume is all modeled after the US military). However, for the purpose of the coming discussion, I would like point out the intangibles: Debate Rules & Identical Armies – we must recognize that the rules & setting (including definitions of this debate) will play an important and still as yet unforeseen part in this scenario – the most significant ones in my view are that Con (my side) has a moral obligation and purpose. And that this is a “hypothetical international environment where there are exactly two political actors with the exact same circumstances save morality;” whereas AFAIK, the closest historical counterpart of the underlined phrase was the American Civil War, but even then it wasn’t nearly as close to being a perfect example. We must recognize therefore that war between two otherwise identical countries/armies has never occurred in history and may have unforeseen consequences in our discussions. Military Advantage of Attacking First – seizing of the initiative is crucial in any realistic war scenario, and though the goal of the scenario is to keep all things equal; Pro’s side will have the military advantage of attacking first. My side is perfectly okay with this, however I believe Pro and I have agreed to mitigate this advantage somewhat by agreeing to a deployment round. Military Advantage of Superior Generalship – Pro and Con are the respective tacticians and strategists of otherwise identical countries and armies. It is a possibility therefore, that PRO or CON could simply “out-general” each other to a victory – thereby bypassing our greatest differential factor “morality” with our wits. If you therefore (the non-voting voter) choose to be a careful critic of this debate, it will be important to remember how much of this scenario came down to smart “strategy and tactics” vs. any actual differences in morality. Unrealistic Parameters - though Pro and Con will appeal to realism throughout, everything we do will still humorously be restricted to the make-believe parameters of this debate. Any final opinions will have to keep that in mind. -- With that, I’d like to formally announce to all that my side is playing to win. Thank you again wrichcirw for this challenge, and good luck!