Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war?

[Geronimo]

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.

[MOBIUS]

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

[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.

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.

[Flubber]

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

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[MOBIUS]

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.

[MOBIUS]

Re: Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war?

FWIW

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.

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...

[Geronimo]

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.

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?

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Is there a difference between a military defeat and a politcal defeat in war?

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?

[Flubber]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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

[GePap]

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.

[Chemical Ollie]

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.

[Ecthy]

The baltic states always lost.

[Zulu Elephant]

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.