Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars (Paper, 1975) [pdf](web.stanford.edu)
web.stanford.edu
Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars (Paper, 1975) [pdf]
https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/2.2/Mack%20WP%201975%20Asymm%20Conf.pdf
147 comments
The war in Ukraine is the strangest war history has ever seen. A much, much larger opponent with shockingly incompetent leadership and preparation invades a smaller country that has been aggressively preparing for exactly this outcome, armed with the support of many of the world’s strongest economic and military suppliers’ middle tier gear and top tier intelligence.
Indeed. And Ukraine doing absolutely amazing propaganda work to pull the entire developed world firmly onto its side. I don't mean to take anything away from the suffering Ukraine is experiencing, or the justness of its cause. I mean, they're presenting all that in an incredibly persuasive way, across essentially all media.
For example, early on in the invasion, we saw pictures of new highway signs, where the directions to different cities had been replaced with (in Russian), "Fuck Off", "Also Fuck Off", and "Fuck Off Back to Russia." Or, when a brewery switched to creating Molotov cocktails, they had already printed labels, with fun graphic design, an the title "Putin is a dickhead." That wasn't spontaneous. They had an entire portfolio of stuff like that, which they'd been planning for years.
Absolutely genius preparation by Ukraine.
For example, early on in the invasion, we saw pictures of new highway signs, where the directions to different cities had been replaced with (in Russian), "Fuck Off", "Also Fuck Off", and "Fuck Off Back to Russia." Or, when a brewery switched to creating Molotov cocktails, they had already printed labels, with fun graphic design, an the title "Putin is a dickhead." That wasn't spontaneous. They had an entire portfolio of stuff like that, which they'd been planning for years.
Absolutely genius preparation by Ukraine.
I'm getting Russo-Japanese vibes from this war.
Tsar Nicholas starts an imperial war of aggression with Japan to obtain a warm-water port, while the Japanese Navy (supplied with last-generation ships from the British Navy) surprises the world and proves to be able to fight the Russians on the world stage.
Turns out that those old British ships were still pretty good, and the Japanese have learned how to use Western guns and tactics by the early 1900s (despite being a Samurai/Sword society just 40 years prior).
Tsar Nicholas starts an imperial war of aggression with Japan to obtain a warm-water port, while the Japanese Navy (supplied with last-generation ships from the British Navy) surprises the world and proves to be able to fight the Russians on the world stage.
Turns out that those old British ships were still pretty good, and the Japanese have learned how to use Western guns and tactics by the early 1900s (despite being a Samurai/Sword society just 40 years prior).
Even on paper the match between Japan and Russia was much more evenly matched. Japan was balls deep in their whole "speed run European history" phase at that time. Russia didn't care about the territory in question nearly as much and it was more of a "fisticuffs between two people who already are predisposed to fight each other" war.
Ukraine isn't that big and isn't developing like that right now and the Russian motivation is very different.
Ukraine isn't that big and isn't developing like that right now and the Russian motivation is very different.
Didn't Japan start that war?
Hmmm. Politics of the 1800s are weird. Both sides were imperialists, expanding their domains far beyond their historical norms.
Russia expanded eastward. Japan expanded westward.
You're right that Japan ultimately was the one who started the attack though. But I'm also looking at Russia's expansion to seek a warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean and connect it up with the Tran-Siberian railway.
Russia definitely was encroaching upon the East. But Japan also was encroaching upon the West, with the 1890s Sino-Japanese War. Soooooo... both are kind of imperialistic assholes on this event, now that I think of it.
Russia expanded eastward. Japan expanded westward.
You're right that Japan ultimately was the one who started the attack though. But I'm also looking at Russia's expansion to seek a warm-water port on the Pacific Ocean and connect it up with the Tran-Siberian railway.
Russia definitely was encroaching upon the East. But Japan also was encroaching upon the West, with the 1890s Sino-Japanese War. Soooooo... both are kind of imperialistic assholes on this event, now that I think of it.
What is so weird about that? Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.
> Proxy wars have been a thing since the Roman empire. It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time, but NATO certainly seems to be regarding it as such.
Many things described as modern “proxy wars” between major powers have been direct wars between a major power and an ally of an opposed major power (and many have involved direct conflict between major powers, though usually with at least one major power having deniability.) This was true of several of the major USA/USSR “proxy” conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan).
Many things described as modern “proxy wars” between major powers have been direct wars between a major power and an ally of an opposed major power (and many have involved direct conflict between major powers, though usually with at least one major power having deniability.) This was true of several of the major USA/USSR “proxy” conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan).
I can think of no proxy war that has played out like this. The scale of Russian incompetence is difficult to understand.
Learn some history. This is about par for Russian performance for large scale wars for past 100s of years. They're a huge land power with chronically underfunded military where corruption cause initial stumbling but they tend to hammer through and win.
I’m familiar with Russia’s military past. This war is notably different in character imo.
To me, it kind of feels like the coup attempt against Gorbachev, where a bunch of the coup leaders were drunk, and the whole thing quickly fell apart. It's the same level of incompetence.
Most proxy wars aren't fought with really up to date technology wielded by professional soldiers. Weirdest? Don't know, but it certainly is remarkable.
"It's just that Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time"
Russia has been conducting a proxy war in Ukraine for years, trying to inspire ethnic Russians to revolt against their supposed Ukrainian oppressors. That ploy turned into a quagmire because even ethic Russians in Ukraine don't want to live under Russian control.
Russia is doomed in this fight. They've only secured about 20% of Eastern Ukraine, exposing the rot in the heart of the Russian military in the process. If they ever get as far as Western Ukraine, where they will face desperate ethnic Ukrainians armed to the teeth with advanced weapons, supported by supply lines to the Western world and informed by real time surveillance the Russians can only dream of, the Russian body count will be staggering; far beyond any level Putin can conceal or survive politically.
The awful truth is that this ends only after enough Russian men have been fed into the meat grinder and Putin is deposed. For Putin it's win or fall, and winning clearly isn't feasible.
Russia has been conducting a proxy war in Ukraine for years, trying to inspire ethnic Russians to revolt against their supposed Ukrainian oppressors. That ploy turned into a quagmire because even ethic Russians in Ukraine don't want to live under Russian control.
Russia is doomed in this fight. They've only secured about 20% of Eastern Ukraine, exposing the rot in the heart of the Russian military in the process. If they ever get as far as Western Ukraine, where they will face desperate ethnic Ukrainians armed to the teeth with advanced weapons, supported by supply lines to the Western world and informed by real time surveillance the Russians can only dream of, the Russian body count will be staggering; far beyond any level Putin can conceal or survive politically.
The awful truth is that this ends only after enough Russian men have been fed into the meat grinder and Putin is deposed. For Putin it's win or fall, and winning clearly isn't feasible.
I want to believe that. But then I think about how desperation could just lead to missile attacks / high level bombing of still-populous western Ukrainian urban centers and I'm not so sure.
Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles).
To destroy large swaths of Ukraine, Russia needs to march its artillery, be it MLRS systems or 162mm Howitzers, within firing range of city areas. The Ukrainian forces have largely repelled these advances.
MLRS systems and 162mm Howitzers "only" have 30km range or so. Sure, Russia has longer-range systems, but they're clearly trying to get these cheaper artillery systems within firing range of Kyiv (and other cities).
The Ukrainians have pushed back and have stalled the progress. Keeping those systems at least 50km away from the Kyiv center will prevent the worst of attacks that Russia can afford to launch.
--------
Given what Russia is doing to Mariupol, its clear that they don't mind razing entire cities to the ground with these kinds of artillery strikes. The key for the Ukrainians moving forward are to keep the Russian line away from artillery strike range.
To destroy large swaths of Ukraine, Russia needs to march its artillery, be it MLRS systems or 162mm Howitzers, within firing range of city areas. The Ukrainian forces have largely repelled these advances.
MLRS systems and 162mm Howitzers "only" have 30km range or so. Sure, Russia has longer-range systems, but they're clearly trying to get these cheaper artillery systems within firing range of Kyiv (and other cities).
The Ukrainians have pushed back and have stalled the progress. Keeping those systems at least 50km away from the Kyiv center will prevent the worst of attacks that Russia can afford to launch.
--------
Given what Russia is doing to Mariupol, its clear that they don't mind razing entire cities to the ground with these kinds of artillery strikes. The key for the Ukrainians moving forward are to keep the Russian line away from artillery strike range.
"Cruise missiles are too expensive for Russia to keep using (and are among the cheapest of long-range missiles)."
A NATO assessment last week concluded that Russia has already expended nearly all of the missiles (Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles) they had staged for the invasion. Since then they've used a couple hypersonic missiles, but those are fabulously expensive and thus not available in quantity. Russia won't be blowing up Soviet era apartment blocks with hundreds of those.
So yes, I think you are correct; if they're going to continue the missile attacks they'll need to use up Russia's reserve munitions. Otherwise, as you say, they have to turn to artillery.
Turns out Ukraine is pretty effective at artillery duels. The blasted Russian armor we see isn't all down to Javelins and NLAWs; they're directing artillery with UAVs to great effect.
Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. They just don't have the munitions.
A NATO assessment last week concluded that Russia has already expended nearly all of the missiles (Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles) they had staged for the invasion. Since then they've used a couple hypersonic missiles, but those are fabulously expensive and thus not available in quantity. Russia won't be blowing up Soviet era apartment blocks with hundreds of those.
So yes, I think you are correct; if they're going to continue the missile attacks they'll need to use up Russia's reserve munitions. Otherwise, as you say, they have to turn to artillery.
Turns out Ukraine is pretty effective at artillery duels. The blasted Russian armor we see isn't all down to Javelins and NLAWs; they're directing artillery with UAVs to great effect.
Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties. They just don't have the munitions.
> Bottom line is, short of turning to nukes, Putin can't actually rubbleize all of Ukraine without a epic number of Russia casualties.
While estimates vary, I’ve seen none that indicates Russia isn't experiencing mind-boggling casualties for the major power in a modern major-power-on-one-side war as it is.
The US estimate put it at a large fraction of the total official Soviet losses over the whole decade-long campaign in Afghanistan that was sometimes referred to as the USSR’s Afghanistan and major contributor to the collapse of the regime, the Ukraine MOD estimates put it well over the Soviet Afghanistan toll.)
While estimates vary, I’ve seen none that indicates Russia isn't experiencing mind-boggling casualties for the major power in a modern major-power-on-one-side war as it is.
The US estimate put it at a large fraction of the total official Soviet losses over the whole decade-long campaign in Afghanistan that was sometimes referred to as the USSR’s Afghanistan and major contributor to the collapse of the regime, the Ukraine MOD estimates put it well over the Soviet Afghanistan toll.)
A very credible report I've seen tonight has Russia mobilizing more 'soldiers.' They've ordered men up to 60 years old to report in on April 1.
This is just getting started.
This is just getting started.
Rubblization hasn't worked yet, and so far Russia has only assaulted the easy side of Ukraine. Western Ukraine will be the equivalent of a dozen Mariupols. Putin would have to mobilize all of Russia in the attempt.
Seems like a gross exaggeration. Larger RU experiencing some difficulties annexing one her smaller neighbours with foreign support is history rhyming, down to both sides thoroughly entrenched in their own propaganda. This is regression towards mean in terms of typicalness of peer war. Note scale, paper deals with insurgencies.
I'm really curious if Ukraines years of preparation was a big factor in Russia's hesitation to use the airforce (besides helicopters) in the initial days of the war.
That plus not getting strong air supremacy.
That plus not getting strong air supremacy.
Anti air batteries. Ukraine has several.
You can avoid them flying low, but then you fall into the killing envelope of shoulder mounted anti-air weapons, which Ukraine also happens to have many.
You can avoid them flying low, but then you fall into the killing envelope of shoulder mounted anti-air weapons, which Ukraine also happens to have many.
We’ve been here before with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That didn’t work out too well for them either
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a slow guerilla war against an insurgency. Russia has lost more troops in Ukraine in a few weeks than in 9 years of Afghanistan. It’s not an insurgency either. Ukraine is outright fielding a proper army with armor and air support and what not.
Hell they’ve got a sizeable amount of the western front of Russia’s army surrounded and set for a strategic rout.
Hell they’ve got a sizeable amount of the western front of Russia’s army surrounded and set for a strategic rout.
Surrounded == encirclement (ie: mass capture).
Rout == uncoordinated retreat, which seems to be happening on a regular basis right now. Russian morale is really, really bad.
Surrounded / Encirclement might really be happening. Its hard to tell for sure due to the fog of war, it could just be Ukrainian propaganda, but there's so much discussion about a Ukrainian counter-push in various parts of the country.
Rout == enemy escapes, with heavy losses due to disorganization. Its a win, but not as much of a win as "Surrounded/Encirlcement", which basically is a "surrender or die" situation.
Its clear that the Russians were trying to encircle Kyiv (and Mariupol with more success). But there seems to be whispers that the Ukrainians are successfully surrounding / encircling some Russian troops.
Rout == uncoordinated retreat, which seems to be happening on a regular basis right now. Russian morale is really, really bad.
Surrounded / Encirclement might really be happening. Its hard to tell for sure due to the fog of war, it could just be Ukrainian propaganda, but there's so much discussion about a Ukrainian counter-push in various parts of the country.
Rout == enemy escapes, with heavy losses due to disorganization. Its a win, but not as much of a win as "Surrounded/Encirlcement", which basically is a "surrender or die" situation.
Its clear that the Russians were trying to encircle Kyiv (and Mariupol with more success). But there seems to be whispers that the Ukrainians are successfully surrounding / encircling some Russian troops.
Nor for the US
Afghanistan?
[deleted]
Maybe a "[1975]" tag is in order, to better indicate that it doesn't refer to current events?
Wow. This was written before Afghanistan and Ukraine? That is uncanny; this might as well could've been written in part about the Taliban insurgency.
I guess in 1975 it would be around the longest break Afghanistan had, from being invaded by superpowers (~100 years since the British, Soviets about to do their thing).
Yeah, thanks for amending this 1975 date. It made it all the more
interesting. Still only half way through but this is a great analysis
by Andrew Mack.
So, it leans heavily on Vietnam for its arguments as it was written before Afghanistan (a fail for the Russians and Allies).
What I'm getting is a combination of two factors in conventional asymmetrical conflict;
1) For the superior force, not winning is basically losing
2) There's a sort of "Overton window" for winning, after which you lose at home, politically.
Vietnam played out at home via television and newspapers. The US tried to avoid that mistake during Iraq-I by massively managing the news media and images. Iraq-I happened on CNN and was carefully scripted. Even now we're only just getting documentary accounts of how it really went over there, things that surprise even those who served.
Putin is trying that. But in the internet age I think it's failing.
So, it leans heavily on Vietnam for its arguments as it was written before Afghanistan (a fail for the Russians and Allies).
What I'm getting is a combination of two factors in conventional asymmetrical conflict;
1) For the superior force, not winning is basically losing
2) There's a sort of "Overton window" for winning, after which you lose at home, politically.
Vietnam played out at home via television and newspapers. The US tried to avoid that mistake during Iraq-I by massively managing the news media and images. Iraq-I happened on CNN and was carefully scripted. Even now we're only just getting documentary accounts of how it really went over there, things that surprise even those who served.
Putin is trying that. But in the internet age I think it's failing.
This is a paper on insurgency, not conventional wars between nations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Someone who read the PDF and didn't just use the headline as a jumping off point to talk about Russia!
Agreed, it seems to be talking about terrorism-style wars like Algeria and guerilla wars like Vietnam. The Ukraine war is far more conventional and both parties are a strong existing nation state.
Agreed, it seems to be talking about terrorism-style wars like Algeria and guerilla wars like Vietnam. The Ukraine war is far more conventional and both parties are a strong existing nation state.
Bigger nations have (rightfully!!) stopped being willing to kill or enslave everyone if there is any form of uprising or resistance. It's not like the Gauls or the British or the Jews didn't try to rise up against the Romans, or Native American groups against the US, they were just incredibly brutally put down.
I wonder if really winning a war and properly suppressing its people long term just requires a level of barbarism towards its populous that countries can no longer do? It certainly seems that the "winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything.
I don't think this is true. Wars have been successful at those goals without the hundreds of thousands or millions of souls lost to unsuccessful wars.
There was no real hearts and minds in, say, Afghanistan. A real hearts and minds campaign would see at least as much on improving the quality of life as in destruction, yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, enough money was spent that the US could have provided every single family with a car, modern electronics, built a brand new house, and more - what was spent in Afghanistan was 350 000$ for each Afghan family!
And yet the average Afghan saw war, devastation, death, and famine. The level of material investment is so bad that, adjusted for inflation, the average Afghan was significantly richer during the Soviet-Afghan war as during U.S. occupation.
I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that real effort was spent on hearts and minds when so much money was spent on war when the living condition of the average Afghan only got worse.
If you want hearts and minds, you need to materially and significantly improve the life of whoever you are occupying at the bare minimum. You can't impoverish a population that's already massively impoverished and claim that you're doing hearts and minds.
There was no real hearts and minds in, say, Afghanistan. A real hearts and minds campaign would see at least as much on improving the quality of life as in destruction, yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, enough money was spent that the US could have provided every single family with a car, modern electronics, built a brand new house, and more - what was spent in Afghanistan was 350 000$ for each Afghan family!
And yet the average Afghan saw war, devastation, death, and famine. The level of material investment is so bad that, adjusted for inflation, the average Afghan was significantly richer during the Soviet-Afghan war as during U.S. occupation.
I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that real effort was spent on hearts and minds when so much money was spent on war when the living condition of the average Afghan only got worse.
If you want hearts and minds, you need to materially and significantly improve the life of whoever you are occupying at the bare minimum. You can't impoverish a population that's already massively impoverished and claim that you're doing hearts and minds.
2.3 trillion (US spending https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-b... ) / 40 million (Afghan population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-popu...) = $57,500. Which is still 8x the most typical salary of $7,000 USD a year ( https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/afghanistan ).
I said per family, not per person - the average Afghan household has 6-7 people.
GDP per capita of Afghanistan is ~500$/head, the vast majority don't have a salary at all.
GDP per capita of Afghanistan is ~500$/head, the vast majority don't have a salary at all.
You really do have to ask what might have happened if the US had just said "give us Bin Laden, we'll buy everyone a house and a car".
It's staggering how much the war ended up costing in money, time, and lives.
It's staggering how much the war ended up costing in money, time, and lives.
I think the example of the Mongol conquests supports your point about the success of barbarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
On the contrary, Rome was able to conquer most of Europe thanks to its hearts and minds approach. You can rule yourself, keep doing your thing, get some nice roads and towns, move on with life. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Rome and pay some taxes. No more than that. You didn't even have to change your religion if you didn't want to.
If you said no, that's when the pain started of course.
You can conquer people by force, but you can't occupy by force. Occupation only works with hearts and minds.
If you said no, that's when the pain started of course.
You can conquer people by force, but you can't occupy by force. Occupation only works with hearts and minds.
That's really not how it worked, the conquered people mostly obeyed the Roman rule not because they were won over with hearts and minds but because otherwise the Romans were absolutely brutal and cruel in their punishment against any kind of uprising or disobedience. Rebellions and insurgencies broke out all over the place and were usually brutally crushed typically with great bloodshed on both sides and any survivors and their families typically suffering one of the many cruel and unusual punishments the Romans favoured.
>"winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything.
Agent orange, Mỹ Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of maimed, displaced, financially ruined, starved (check heartwarming reply of Madeleine Albright in regards to 500,000 kids dead by starvation and desease). Well the list can go on and on.
I fail to see even a trace of "winning hearts and minds" approach here.
Agent orange, Mỹ Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of maimed, displaced, financially ruined, starved (check heartwarming reply of Madeleine Albright in regards to 500,000 kids dead by starvation and desease). Well the list can go on and on.
I fail to see even a trace of "winning hearts and minds" approach here.
We are now finding that out.
Ukraine with most of the people dead may be an acceptable outcome to Putin. Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now.
Ukraine with most of the people dead may be an acceptable outcome to Putin. Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now.
>"Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now"
I have zero sympathy to that rabid dog Putin. However your "most of the people dead" is total BS. Check the numbers on Wikipedia - casualties vs population [0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
I have zero sympathy to that rabid dog Putin. However your "most of the people dead" is total BS. Check the numbers on Wikipedia - casualties vs population [0].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
Not for lack of trying. Drone video of Mariupol yesterday.[1] Some people got out in time. Some didn't. At least 100,000 are stuck with no escape route.[2] The city is surrounded and being shelled by both ground artillery and naval vessels.
There's no body count yet.
The siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg today) is the closest historical parallel.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-ne...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-...
There's no body count yet.
The siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg today) is the closest historical parallel.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-ne...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-...
>"Not for lack of trying"
Trying does not count. Actual results do.
Siege of the Leningrad had lasted 900 days with the body count of 1.5 million people. Judging by the way things going in Ukraine this whole Putin's war should be over pretty soon and not to his liking.
Trying does not count. Actual results do.
Siege of the Leningrad had lasted 900 days with the body count of 1.5 million people. Judging by the way things going in Ukraine this whole Putin's war should be over pretty soon and not to his liking.
Russia is only "losing" because they can't justify being barbaric to the world, US justified that with fighting terrorism, so "collateral damage" was allowed.
I lived enough that I made it to 2021 to see that even Israel starting to care about that, when they let people know what buildings they are targeting before launching the attack.
I lived enough that I made it to 2021 to see that even Israel starting to care about that, when they let people know what buildings they are targeting before launching the attack.
> when they let people know what buildings they are targeting before launching the attack
This is not a new thing in 2021. They have been calling families to evacuate their homes before the home's scheduled bombing for a long time (I think more than a decade now).
This is not a new thing in 2021. They have been calling families to evacuate their homes before the home's scheduled bombing for a long time (I think more than a decade now).
I managed to get through the PDF and it certainly dances around the vietnam war. Stanfords shouldering the bulk of the wound-licking here as vietnam ended in futility in 1975, which is a little early for a comprehensive academic assessment if you ask me. the article also flogs 'asymmetry' to the point of using it to scapegoat US culpability of leadership. Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication. conscripting americans resulted in desertion and decline of morale to the point most soldiers didnt care, and lying to the public about casualty and progress made it equally untenable at home.
im sure after defeat it was comforting to consider it a small war, but it wasnt. vitenam had the full backing (albeit proxy) might of the soviet union. it killed or wounded nearly 200,000 US troops and at a surge point of 3.5 million enlisted troops spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades.
im sure after defeat it was comforting to consider it a small war, but it wasnt. vitenam had the full backing (albeit proxy) might of the soviet union. it killed or wounded nearly 200,000 US troops and at a surge point of 3.5 million enlisted troops spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades.
> spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades
That was why, as a teenager, I refused to consider any kind of military involvement. The whole Vietnam war appeared an abuse of the draft and the goodwill of people who joined voluntarily.
I still lean towards a belief that militaries should be all voluntary.
That was why, as a teenager, I refused to consider any kind of military involvement. The whole Vietnam war appeared an abuse of the draft and the goodwill of people who joined voluntarily.
I still lean towards a belief that militaries should be all voluntary.
I think during wartimes political leaders and business leaders (especially defense company leaders) should be required to either go themselves to the front themselves or have their children fight in the war. It’s good for them to have “skin in the game” in wartime so they understand their decisions better. There are way too many examples of leaders and their families who live the good life during war while the military and civilian population are suffering.
I wouldn't force anyone into war, even the children of politicians.
John McCain couldn't raise his hands because of his torture at the hand of the Vietcong.
Then big-man draft-dodger Trump comes around and gets the Republican Nomination instead, all the while making fun of McCain's injuries as a POW.
People like to pretend they care about leaders who have gone into war zones and personally risked their lives. But the politics of the past decade have taught me that all of that is just more political bluster. There's no actual power to going into war and risking yourself as a leader, the people will forget by the next election.
Then big-man draft-dodger Trump comes around and gets the Republican Nomination instead, all the while making fun of McCain's injuries as a POW.
People like to pretend they care about leaders who have gone into war zones and personally risked their lives. But the politics of the past decade have taught me that all of that is just more political bluster. There's no actual power to going into war and risking yourself as a leader, the people will forget by the next election.
I only see him calling this a small war compared to what the USA could have brought to the battle field.
At the peak, there were about 550,000 US troops in Vietnam. In World War Two, they eventually fielded 10 million persons (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-...).
So, if the political will had been there at home, they could have sent a lot more.
I also think what you describe in “Congress and Senate couldnt… made it equally untenable at home.” is precisely the argument this paper made: that war was lost in the USA, not in Vietnam.
At the peak, there were about 550,000 US troops in Vietnam. In World War Two, they eventually fielded 10 million persons (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-...).
So, if the political will had been there at home, they could have sent a lot more.
I also think what you describe in “Congress and Senate couldnt… made it equally untenable at home.” is precisely the argument this paper made: that war was lost in the USA, not in Vietnam.
Agreed on the last point - Vietnam was no small war, at all. For comparison, the Ukraine war is not small either, and has around 1/10th as many troops on the attacking side!
>> Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication.
Ultimately the administration needed Congressional backing, but the Pentagon reports directly to the president.
Ultimately the administration needed Congressional backing, but the Pentagon reports directly to the president.
Today Russia is forcing oil payments in rubbles to unfriendly countries. This will shore up their currency and with the price increase in oil I'm not sure Russia is losing the economic war.
Military wise they are afraid to go in and out right kill and level cities which is how they normally wage war. It makes sense because they share a genetic history where they had no issue leveling separatist southern provinces when needed.
Military wise they are afraid to go in and out right kill and level cities which is how they normally wage war. It makes sense because they share a genetic history where they had no issue leveling separatist southern provinces when needed.
They do are bombing and leveling cities already.
[deleted]