31-08-2005 04:10									#1
	Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In another thread it was suggested that the outcome of the Vietnam war illustrated the inferiority of US military forces. Another poster then replied that the Vietnam war while a political defeat for the US was also nothing but a string of military victories for the US military. That argument was in turn dismissed as the result of brainwashed fantasy.


This has got me thinking however. Is it true that sufficient military superiority will always guarentee political victory? Is it even possible to have an unfavorable outcome to a war without one's military being defeated in battle? The consensus throughout the world appears to be that it is not possible to lose a war without having your military defeated, judging by the widespread perception that the The british leaving India, the US leaving Vietnam, and the soviets leaving afghanistan were all proof of the inferiority of the departing military as compared to their adversaries.

What do the rest of you think? Does it even matter which military in a conflict was more capable if the political outcome that military was intended to influence is not achieved? Are future wars more or less likely with either of these interpretations?

please discuss.

	31-08-2005 04:16									#2
	Put an end to popups!

All that matters is that the US were forced from the theatre of war therefore they lost.

	31-08-2005 04:16									#3
	Tired of ads?

Wars are usually either fought for land (Anschluss), or for political reasons (Vietnam, Iraq). Losing the war is failing to complete the objective set by the commander / President whatever.

I don't think there can be any doubt that the US forces were militarily superior to Vietnamese. The US forces surely had the disadvantage of (very) unsuitable terrain and whatnot, but the firepower was superior.

If the goal of the Iraq war is to overthrow Saddam, and create a new country with a democratic constitution and what not, then the war will be won if the system actually works. If the goal were just overthrowing Saddam (which is not the case), you could say the war was won months after it started.

The USSR, although without a de-facto war, occupied the Baltic States in 1940. The goal was to strengthen the USSR and create the most powerful country. Economically, the country failed, so it did politically. Thus, the "wars" fought with the occupied countries were, in a way, lost.

	31-08-2005 04:25									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Military and POlitical can be very very different although arguably you "win" a war if you achive your political objectives.

the US lost Vietnam but I have difficulty with the idea that it was a military defeat. The military was ordered to leave with the war unwon in a war where they largely operated with major constraints on their abilities to fight it.
Thats the problem with figting a limited type war

	31-08-2005 04:37									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS All that matters is that the US were forced from the theatre of war therefore they lost.

Have a cookie for completely missing the point of the the thread.

	31-08-2005 04:54									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Actually I got to the crux of the point as economically as possible...

Have a cookie for not even addressing the point of this thread.

	31-08-2005 05:02									#7
	Re: Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

FWIW

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Does it even matter which military in a conflict was more capable if the political outcome that military was intended to influence is not achieved?

No. See Vietnam.

quote: Are future wars more or less likely with either of these interpretations?

The logical answer would be less likely. However it depends on how smart our politicians are - people like Bush seem to be making the same mistakes as in the past...

	31-08-2005 06:09									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Solver Wars are usually either fought for land (Anschluss), or for political reasons (Vietnam, Iraq). Losing the war is failing to complete the objective set by the commander / President whatever. I don't think there can be any doubt that the US forces were militarily superior to Vietnamese. The US forces surely had the disadvantage of (very) unsuitable terrain and whatnot, but the firepower was superior.

Well said. This is more or less the attitude I have had.

quote: Originally posted by Solver If the goal of the Iraq war is to overthrow Saddam, and create a new country with a democratic constitution and what not, then the war will be won if the system actually works. If the goal were just overthrowing Saddam (which is not the case), you could say the war was won months after it started. The USSR, although without a de-facto war, occupied the Baltic States in 1940. The goal was to strengthen the USSR and create the most powerful country. Economically, the country failed, so it did politically. Thus, the "wars" fought with the occupied countries were, in a way, lost.

This part of your post cuts close to why I've been re-thinking the whole conecpt of 'victory' in war. What if we indentify the goal of the US leadership as securing Iraqs weapons of Mass destruction? In that case (since the WMD never existed) could we argue that the war was 'lost' before it even started and that military strength of both sides was totally irrelevant?

	31-08-2005 06:18									#9
	Re: Re: Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war? Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS The logical answer would be less likely. However it depends on how smart our politicians are - people like Bush seem to be making the same mistakes as in the past...

Wouldn't the logical answer depend on which interpretation you espouse? Furthermore the phrase "war is diplomacy by other means" has been widely accepted as an insightful observation on the origin of wars. However, if war is mostly begun to accomplish a political objectives and it is also widely supposed that military strength is irrelevant to the outcome of such wars might we not expect wars to become even more likely as a desperate gamble undertaken with the philosophy that a favorable political outcome of such a war is always possible regardless of the prevailing military situation?

	31-08-2005 06:25									#10
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo This part of your post cuts close to why I've been re-thinking the whole conecpt of 'victory' in war.

The concept of military victory can be subject to interpretation. Some would say that there was no military victory in Iraq as long as there are significant numbers of insurgents, but that would make winning militarily impossible as long as there was active armed dissent. How do you win a war against an enemy that holds no ground, presents no front and mixes with the population whenever they choose not to fight?

Others could claim victory in the fact that there have been no follow-up attacks on US soil itself. The "fight-em THERE crowd. I don't know if that has been a military "victory" or a policing one or just the fact that an ongoing failure has yet to manifest itself.

	31-08-2005 06:27									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Others could claim victory in the fact that there have been no follow-up attacks on US soil itself. The "fight-em THERE crowd. I don't know if that has been a military "victory" or a policing one or just the fact that an ongoing failure has yet to manifest itself.

For some reason I find this part incredibly funny

	31-08-2005 10:03									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As Solver stated, all wars have aims. Your degree of victory or defeat (there is a scale, not just a black or white choice) is judged by how well the aims of the operation are met.

Now, some aims can be accomplished simply by military force. Some can't. If your aim can be accomplished purely through military cohersion or annahilation, then victory or defeat will be purely military in nature. If military power can only go so far as setting up conditions by which you hope to be able to force the hand of the other side politically, then political defeat is possible.

The second situation though is only true of limited conflicts-ie. where state survival is not the point. Survival of the state is a political aims, of course, but one that can be achieved solely thought the excercise of brute force.

To take Solvers view of WW2, the Soviets obviously won that war. That the state fell apart 40 years later is irrelevant to the fact that Soviets achieved their war aims.

	31-08-2005 12:59									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Wars are not won by the side that can inflict the most damage to the enemy, but the side that can absorb the worst casualties without giving up.

	31-08-2005 15:52									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The baltic states always lost.

	31-08-2005 16:03									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

There are two parts to a war - first destroying the other side's army and then afterwards, making the defeated people do what you tell them.

Overwhelming military force can do the first, but can't do the second, thus Iraq, Soviets in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Eastern Europeans throwing off the Soviets etc.

	31-08-2005 16:41									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

What's a military victory?

It's not inflicting more casualties on the enemy than vice-versa, even though some Americans seem to believe that.

	31-08-2005 17:34									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A military victory is achieved when the opposing forces are no longer in a position to fight. Either they surrender or run away. If they run away they may regroup to fight you again so you may have to earn another victory.

Inflicting greater casulaties on your opponent is neither here nor there. The Germans killed far more Russians than the other way round but still lost.

	31-08-2005 18:22									#18
	Suffering from ads?

quote: This part of your post cuts close to why I've been re-thinking the whole conecpt of 'victory' in war. What if we indentify the goal of the US leadership as securing Iraqs weapons of Mass destruction? In that case (since the WMD never existed) could we argue that the war was 'lost' before it even started and that military strength of both sides was totally irrelevant?

With the Iraq war, there's the added difficulty that it's hard to determine what the goal was. Preventing Iraq from getting/using WMDs? Overthrowing Saddam? Getting control of the oilfields? Establishing a democratic Iraq?

quote: What's a military victory? It's not inflicting more casualties on the enemy than vice-versa, even though some Americans seem to believe that.

Getting the opposing army in such a condition when they can no longer reasonably fight. If you destroy 90% of enemy armored forces and their entire air force, that's probably a military victory.

	31-08-2005 20:02									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Others could claim victory in the fact that there have been no follow-up attacks on US soil itself. The "fight-em THERE crowd. I don't know if that has been a military "victory" or a policing one or just the fact that an ongoing failure has yet to manifest itself. For some reason I find this part incredibly funny

Why?? I have no idea how effective the anti-terrorist measures have been in reality. Do you?? One could assume that they have been very effective in preventing attacks on the US but for all I know there are a dozen major attacks that could happen tomorrow.

Thats all I was referencing and I'm not sure what is so funny about that simple idea.

	31-08-2005 20:18									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I know, I know. It's just the phrasing.