Isn't waging total war meant to kill the enemy?

 

You know, like we win, because there literally are none left?

 

 

"Peace is a by-product of victory".

While it is not impossible, enduring peace is rarely achieved through diplomacy, concessions by one party to the other or nonsensical concepts such as "road maps". Physically putting the other party in the position where he has no option but to accept your terms (which should not be unrealistically onerous) is the only certain way to achieve lasting peace.

 

Cheers.

The classic definition of total war includes the war economy and thus the workers, factories, and even worker housing are legitimate targets.  This type of war was fought by most of the players during WWII.  It's mostly no longer accepted.  Another aspect of total war is turning over a very large percentage of one's economy over to nothing but that which supports war.

 

From this perspective one could make a case that Hamas is waging total war.  Israel actually attempt to strike specific targets and keep civilian losses low and is fighting nothing akin to total war.  Israel could bulldoze, demolish, and bomb Gaza flat and kill hundreds of thousands in Gaza which would be a classic definition of total war.  Very few Israeli's would see this as anything but an evil warcrime and mass murder.  Hamas wishes to do this to Israel and would call this a blessed miracle if it could inflict that much death and destruction.

 

 The even more classical definition is an intellectual convenience of a hypothetical war in which 

no consideration but millitary are used. This is a comparison Clausewitz used to highlight war as actually fought.

In that sense, there has never been a total war.