Replies

This article misses a very important element that has probably been one of the most crucial factors in any war: the advantage that one side enjoys over another when it wages war on its own soil. The side that is fighting on its own soil will always be at an advantage over a foreign force, due to several major factors: 1) their familiarity with the terrain, 2) their support among the local population, and 3) their stronger resolve in the face of adversity.

This "home field advantage" is a more accurate description of what is happening in Iraq today -- the IEDs are simply one method by which it is carried out. This factor explains a number of cases throughout history in which a local fighting force was able to defeat a better-equipped adversary (the American Revolution, Russia's victory over Germany at Stalingrad, America's loss in Vietnam, etc.).

The two cases the author cites -- submarines and bombers -- are classic examples of one side taking advantage of two specific aspects of warfare (the sea and the skies) in which a country does not maintain an advantage of familiarity. Since these two areas are where technology is more important than local familiarity (nobody lives under the sea or in the sky), a local military force is not necessarily any more competent than a foreign force. The use of submarines and bombers by the U.S. in World War II, for example, was as effective in and around Japan as it would have been in and around New York City.

You make some thought-provoking points. However, the situation may be more complex than the "home-field advantage" you mention.

There are quite a few Iraqis (I have no idea how many) who are working with us to defeat terrorists.

And there are quite a few foreigners (I have no idea how many) who are terrorists.

The terrorists probably have a little stronger claim to be the "home team" than the good guys do, but the situation is muddled.

This factor explains a number of cases throughout history in which a local fighting force was able to defeat a better-equipped adversary (the American Revolution, Russia's victory over Germany at Stalingrad, America's loss in Vietnam, etc.).

I hate to quibble, but America was not defeated in Vietnam, at least not militarily. United States forces never lost a major engagement to the Communists.

Morever, when South Vietnam did fall, it was not to a "local fighting force" (the Viet Cong were pretty much eliminated as an effective force after the Tet offensive). Instead, it took a full-scale invasion from North Vietnam to defeat the South. That invasion would have failed had the United States supported South Vietnam.

The Vietnam War was lost in the halls of Congress.