TP IP 6 1. Why do great powers ever lose small wars? 2. Why is the frequency increasing?

Staniland--need to rethink this win-lose distinction Insurgencies can be offensive or defensive; they don't necessarily employ guerilla tactics; War vs collateral violence Lyall/Wilson--mechanization->info starvation->failure; constructivist account What they missed: 4ID 17000, only 3000 infantry Risk aversion is why you put people behind armor...it's about strategy to save lives Caverley--capital over labor->firepower over manpower->failure Mack--structural problem: asymmetryl power->political vulnerability->failure Toft--opposite approach->political vulnerability->failure The policy goal should drive the type of war/strategy. Did we win? Yes...we destroyed the AQ core. Do people like us? No...but that wasn't the point. The strong power does not understand the nature of the war it's getting into. COIN--shape, clear, hold, build, transition (US Army) --raid approach...oil spot Operational art/design--Bridges from tactical reality to strategic goals Liberal information/norms-Organizational culture (Kier)--preferred solutions; we like to puzzle solve; Marines need to keep COIN (identity); other services need to shed it and get back to identity Defenses have an advantage; Clauswitz says offensive must be much stronger and populace will limit the extent of war you fight (how you fight) The nature of the ground force is really important--19-25 yr olds need leader with a checklist (US Army); USMC is more suited to COIN; Rumsfeld--go with what you've got; If you don't want to pay for the bridge, don't build it...bargaining theory....big nations don't understand the cost when they begin. COIN-danistas devalue what makes us good--capital over labor--firepower and maneuver Great powers make sense to prioritize greater threat (not COIN for great powers). Political objectives--why do great states intervene in small wars? Why does it become costly?

Are our objectives clear at start? Structural reasons--power looking for action Ideation reasons--neoconservatism which is actually aggressive liberalism (messianic view of global mission) Military self-justification (Ekle) Domestic political--impetus to do something Political objective may be irrationally derived Interest vs emotion--values based idea--we get in because we're liberal, we lose because we're liberal...the war becomes a threat to the liberal regime Silence of the Rational Center (book) - when you silence the opposition, that is when the US has gotten into messes; truncated debate is problematic;