Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatterasguy
Bot's talking macro theory, your talking tactical practice.
Again look at the war college links, military thought is a field of study like any other.
Winning is always the best place to be, their are no if, and, or buts about it, and wiping out the enemy totally is the most affective way to achieve this. Now taking that and breaking it down to practical theory with politics, resources, etc thrown in is a massive area of study.
If you want to talk about specific wars such as Vietnam that's fine, but that's not what Bot is saying.
Clausewitz and Contemporary War - YouTube
Clausewitz is a good place to start. |
Yes, but my point is that annihilating the enemy is not necessarily a sign of victory or preferable outcome.
The generally unanswered question is when is it prudent to declare stalemate and withdraw?
Experimentation on this is not available. It could have been that if we'd changed the ROE and fought another 10 years, we'd lost another 60K men and still been in the rough. Ultimately there was more reason for them to continue the war than for us, and they weren't at the end of an 8,000+ mile line of supply. This was the view in '72 or so of them who urged enough such that official policy was a pulling of the plug.
In summation, recognizing that no victory is available and withdrawing is a greater victory than fighting on forever with no improvement in outlook and a decrease in morale and economic vigor.