Only if it promises to shorten the conflict and save lives like Sherman's tactics did.
That's a non-answer.
If properly executed, total war will always have the effect of ending the conflict quicker with fewer losses for the victors.
So, given that, one must assume that you're all for waging war on the civilian population of Afghanistan.
Of course, if you don't advocate waging war on the non-combatants in Afghanistan, one can deduce that you have more compassion for the Afghan muslims that you do for American Christians because A) total war would reduce the losses of American troops currently deployed and B) you celebrate the total war that was inflicted upon Christian Americans in the South.
If you're man enough to reply to the above please don't dance around like that POS non-sequitur would do. Just be honest.
Here's another question for ya: if total war is so good, shouldn't both sides do it? Would a future war scenario where the armed troops from both sides purposely refuse to engage each other and attack the civilian populations of their opponents instead meet the approval of Colonel Kangaroo?
If the above meets your approval, one could further assume that you're a M.A.D. proponent.