Jominy argued that total war is the only option, that partial or limited wars were not feasable. You start a war, let the Generals take the football and make the rules. Clauswitz saw it differently, he says war IS politics (albiet politics with a hammer), and that civilian rulers should always control the dynamics of war. The only real rule we usually break is having a CLEAR and stated objective. Geo Bush Sr knew this, the second he met his objectives he stablized the front and withdrew. Jr didn't have this insight, to be fair he probably couldn't fart and chew gum at the same time, Cheney led him into nation building. Oops. Limited war goes back a long time, Princes of Europe used it constantly to gain small advantages over their neighbors, shifting alliances with other kingdoms with each campaign. Sun Tsu commented on it, also(The Art of War). Whether or not to surrender unconditionally or to demand it depends on wether or not the objective can be met, or if the situation is such that any surrender is better than nothing, like Clauswitz said, war IS politics. Incidentally, we teach Clauswitz at West Point. As for combat againsed civilians, some tactical advantage can be gained in a small theater, but almost always this means the war has already gone so bad that the objective have already been compromised. Nuking Japan was an anomaly of history, vaporizing that many humans instantly had a sobering effect on the Emperor (although more died in the Tokyo fire bombing)-yet he was almost over ruled (read killed) by his generals near the end. The most important lesson learned (or not, as we see in Iraq) is that the objective must be clear, the means to it available, and enough flexability and leadership to push it to completion.