The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
The French were run out of Indochina because they were a major power fighting a much smaller but far more committed foe. That did not stop the Americans from launching a war against similarly highly dedicated soldiers who were fighting for their independence from the Western domination of their beleaguered fellow Vietnamese.
In both those instances, the far stronger force lost to the smaller, less well equipped force. Why? It was because the Vietnamese were willing to fight to the death of every soldier, while the foreigners were doing everything they could to keep from being killed.
In the last days of the Pacific War in World War II, if the U.S. had not dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, the death toll on both sides after August 14, 1945 would have been in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Again, why? Even though they were the smaller nation, the Japanese would be willing to fight to the last soldier standing, but the American soldiers would be doing everything they could to keep from being killed.
If soldiers are ready to risk everything in warfare, it makes a huge difference in how wars turn out. It behooves the leaders of mighty nations very carefully to take that into account when they consider declaring a war against a small but highly -- or especially a fanatically -- motivated foe.
Asymmetrical wars have long been waged, but they have become particularly prevalent in the last three centuries. In many respects, the American and the Russian Revolutions were a battle between two very dissimilarly armed groups. The same was true of the British and the Kenyan Mau Mau, and the French and the Algerians. The inequality of the size of the two armies is often equalized by the fact that the “little guys” are fighting for the independence of their own turf, while the “big guys” may have traveled hundreds or thousands of miles to do battle in totally unfamiliar territory.
America didn’t seem to learn anything from the War in Viet Nam, and thirty years later it launched asymmetrical wars against some of the Afghans and some of the Iraqis. In both of those conflicts, we had a few natural allies among the local population, but they were viewed with much suspicion by nearly everyone among the native populations. And by most military measures in both instances, the USA lost the two wars against a smaller but far more disciplined, motivated, and fanatical force of in-country zealots.
In Afghanistan, in addition to being fierce, the Taliban were religious fanatics. In war, almost always religious zealotry will trump political or ethnic zealotry. You could have asked the Romans about that in 72 CE or the Indians and/or Pakistanis in 1948.
Afghanistan has fanatically resisted being taken over by anybody as long as there has been anything resembling an “Afghanistan.” The Soviet Union fought them for ten years, and lost, before the Americans fought them for twenty years, and lost. It is much easier to win a war among relative equals than an asymmetrical war between a major power and a truly dedicated minor power.
What about a war between America and China? That would be symmetrical. Perish the thought! Prepare for it, but never engage in it! A classic lose-lose for both sides!
August 16, 2021
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.