Royal University of Phnom Penh Institute of Foreign Languages

Department of International Studies

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

June, 08 2012

Strategic and Security Studies

Written by:

HOUY Narun, NGOUN Nayhuoy, SAY Vortana

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

Introduction
If power implies victory in war, then weak actors should almost never win against stronger opponents, especially when the gap in relative power is very large. Yet history suggests otherwise, weak actors sometimes do win. The question is how. Strong actors will lose unequal conflicts when they use the wrong strategy with their opponents strategy. (MACK, 2009) There is an explanation for how weak states win unequal wars comprises three key elements: (1) relative power explains relative interests; (2) relative interests explain relative political vulnerability; and (3) relative vulnerability explains why strong actors lose. (MACK, 2009)According to the logic of this argument, strong actors have a lower interest in winning because their survival is not at stake. Weak actors, on the other hand, have a high interest in winning because only victory ensures their survival. The concept of political vulnerability to describe the likelihood that an actors public (in democratic regimes) or competing elites (in authoritarian regimes) will force its leaders to halt the war short of achieving its initial objectives. A strong actors low interests imply high political vulnerability. In contrast, a weak actors high interests imply low political vulnerability. This political vulnerability explains why the strong lose to the weak. So in wining with the strong state, weak state can use strategies of delays and reverses on the battle field will eventually encourage war-weary publics or greedy elites to force the strong actors leaders to abandon the fight. (Arregun-Toft, 2001) Therefore reduces to the claim that relative power explains strong-actor defeat in unequal wars. The case of U.S. intervention in Vietnam provides a strong explanation of that wars unexpected outcome. The United States lost the war because it had less at stake than did North Vietnam. Over time the United States failed to coerce North Vietnam and was eventually forced by an angry and frustrated American public to withdraw short of achieving its main political objective as an independent, noncommunist South Vietnam. (Cassidy, 2002)

1|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

General theory of war aims and war outcomes

Strong states select themselves into armed conflicts only when their estimation before war is in cost of attaining their political objectives through the use of force. The more the actual costs of victory exceed a states pre-war expectations, the greater the risk that it will be pushed beyond this level, and forced to unilaterally withdraw. (Caverley, 2008)Whether military capabilities or resolve matter more depends on the degree to which war aims depend on target compliance.

a. Organizational and cultural theories

These explanations clarify why a powerful may prefer a military doctrine poorly-suited or small war fighting but cannot account for the insistence on fighting them anyway. Surely a realist state would rather not fight a war at all than fight a war it is likely to lose. Organizational and cultural theories about the role of the military claim to fill this explanatory as the theory prescribe the essence in win war. These theories argue that without sufficient pressure from political leaders, elements of the national security structure, particularly the military, will pursue their own ends with little regard for grand strategy.

b. Grand strategy
Grand strategy is the calculated relationship of means to large ends. Its about how one uses whatever one has to get to wherever it is one wants to go. Our knowledge of it derives chiefly from the realm of war and statecraft, because the fighting of wars and the management of states have demanded the calculation of relationships between means and ends for a longer stretch of time than any other documented area of collective human activity. (Gaddis, 2009) While these wars may be consistent with the strong state's grand strategy they are not essential to it; small wars are generally wars of choice. The strong state's aims are limited or political, and success often requires the weak actor's compliance. Small wars are likely to involve intervention in another state's domestic affairs, and the target state may be quite unstable. Because the strong state tends to enjoy overwhelming conventional superiority, a weak state responding in kind is likely to lose. (KATZENSTEIN, 2003) Weak states therefore will often resort, at least in part, to unconventional warfare such as insurgency or terrorism. Fighting an unconventional war is an overwhelming task even for powerful states. Such a conflict often demands tremendous investments in intelligence
2|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

gathering, often calling for a deep understanding of a foreign culture. Success requires gaining the allegiance or at least acquiescence of local non-combatants by providing personal security and economic stability.

c. Theory of redistribution
Another theory that can be used in fight war with strong state is the theory of redistribution. The distribution of the costs of arming and war within the state is my theory's independent variable. When all of a state's costs and benefits of a foreign policy decision are accounted for by the actor responsible for selecting the policy, costs are internalized. A departure from this state due to the shielding of the decision maker from some costs results can lead to moral hazard. (Sullivan, 2008) There is also the question of the morality of the war. When the survival of the nation is not directly threatened and when the obvious inequality in conventional military power give loses status on the insurgent side, the morality of the war is more easily questioned. Moral outrage is in large part a function of the interests perceived to be at stake in the conflict. (Sullivan, 2008)Where survival is the issue, the propensity to question and protest the morality of the means used to defeat. The government which is committed to the war will continue to argue that prosecuting the war is in the national interest that vital security interests are at stake, which the international credibility and prestige of the nation is at issue so that the war can still continue. Whether or not this claim bear any relationship to reality whether they are wholly true or wholly false is unimportant. What counts in the long run is what the opponents of the war believe to be at stake and how much political capital they can gather. So in peacetime, a strong state may act as if its survival is at stake when it is not.

3|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

Case Studies American Revolution War

To analysis the topic of why the strong states lose the weak ones and the above theories more clearly, it is necessary that we raise the case study of the American revolution war to examine that how much it relevant and how much reflect the topic discuss above. The American revolution war or in other word the American independence war started 1777 to 1783 between the British colonial empire and the thirteen American colonial states and further became the major war in Europe as it involved more powerful actors in Europe such as France, Spain, and Dutch. The war initially started by when the American colonists refused to pay tax that British adopted without the representative from the author. The clashes between the two happened quite offend until when the American colonists throw the tea cases from the shipload into the sea, and shortly after that the American colonists established the continent congress by collecting together the thirteen states. The congress appointed George Washington as the president and leads the forces as the revolution against the British colonial empire. As we can see that the British at that time was far better in field of power, navy, and forces while the colonists were small and lack of resources to fight against the colony. According to this, many people would have expected that the strong state which was the British Empire would win over the American thirteen states, but in contrast it lost the war; there are several reasons in explaining the shortfalls of the Britishs losing the war (American Revolutionary War). To begin with, first we will analysis military doctrine to reflect the case. Since we will know that the strong states wage the war against the weak state because the strong states ability to invade while the weak state was unable to sustain the attack. However, by looking at the British forces, even though there were many, most of the them were not willing to fight the war against the American rebels, for instance, the British General, Thomas Gage, was seriously criticize for his leadership of the army, this was because he was influenced by the American wife. General Jeffery Amherst, a British commander in chief turned down the appointment since he was reluctant to take part into the war, and Admiral Augustus Keppel also did the same to the appointment; while the Howe and Henry, a member of parliamentary, clearly stated that they unwilling to participate into the war but they followed the order (American Revolutionary War). All these above, it is

4|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

clear that British forces were not willing to fight in the war at all, which this is the main factor in winning the war. Secondly, by looking at the grand strategy of both countries, we can see that the main goal of the British was only want to maintain the colonial role in the American that could contribute to its politic, economy and its development as the whole. Because of this, it forgot to think about the external intervention from the other European powerful countries such France, Dutch, and Spain. Because the troops of the Britain seem to be the threat to France, then the France decided to enter into the war against British. And the Dutch, and Spain, as the alliances to France, entered the war against the British too. Because of the large amount of the troops against British, it was weaken and weaken until it lost the war in the 1786. Therefore, since the grand strategy which the major force driving for the success was poor, it is with no doubt that the British unlikely to win the war (Paul David Nelson, 1978). While if we see that the grand strategy of the American colonists was more effective under the leadership of the President Washington. That he used both his regular and state militia throughout the war. And this strategy to achieve their main goal of liberty and freedom from colony could gather many American loyalists against the British and made the British forces difficult to crack down them. Thirdly, the other theory that can be applied with the case of the American revolutionary war was the theory of distribution. This theory is about the cost and benefit of fighting the war. The theory believes that the leader would go into the war only if he could get more benefit than the cost. For the Britain, it is clearly that the Britain government a lot of benefit by defeating the revolution rebels because it can continue controlling its colony. In addition, it strong believed to itself that I would win the war regarding to the power and size of its military forces. However, it failed to see that the American rebels were more united rather than those of the Brittan. As we see from the above that most of the Brittan forces were capable enough to fight the revolutionary rebels. Another theory that can explain is the moral hazard theory which states that to win the war the state must not think about the morality at all. That is one of the strengths of the American revolutionary rebels. Because of the hatred of Brittan putting hardship and pressure over the American people, the revolutionary rebels fought against the Brittan forces ruthlessly without caring about the morality plush with the help from other European

5|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

countries and the weakness of the Brittan solider, the American rebels could win its independence successfully. From the above discussion we can conclude the case that it is no matter the large amount of the military and much powerful of the strong state, other factors should be taken into account such the unity, and the effective strategy to control the enemy forces and suppress them as this case.

Vietnam War
In the Vietnam War, the Americans made the same miscalculations for their military strategy. The United States, blessed with a large fleet of bomber planes and arsenal of technologically advanced weapons, bloated their own chances of winning against a fragile Vietnam fresh from a French occupation. Bombing was, and still is, one of the great sacred cows of the American way of war. America's incredible industrial infrastructure allowed it to build a huge air force and virtually a limitless amount of ordnance during the Cold War; The B-52, which was originally designed for dropping nuclear weapons on Russia, was re-fitted for conventional warfare in Vietnam with devastating results (Joe Allen, 2004). The U.S. dropped over one million tons of bombs on North Vietnam. South Vietnam, the primary battlefield of the war, had over four million tons of bombs dropped on it during the war. The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Refugees reported the civilian casualties at 400,000 dead, 900,000 wounded and 6.4 million refugees by 1971, and they concluded "that there is hardly a family n South Vietnam that has not suffered a death, injury or the anguish of abandoning an ancient homestead." (Joe Allen, 2004) Despite dropping more tonnage of high explosive on Vietnam than the whole of World War II, the Americans could not stop the movement of troops or supplies to the south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. (Joe Allen, 2004) Thus, the United State had not controlled all over the country; there were many Vietnamese guerrilla troops that had great experiences in their valleys so that thousands of American troops wounded and died. In addition, Americans had less than their adversary (Arregun-Toft, 2001). Analogous to the colonies, Vietnam braced itself to face the ultimate costs of war. It is important to note that in both wars, each nations threshold remains steady, but as the war prolongs and each side incurs their share of costs, this threshold is tested and so is the strategy (Sullivan, 2008). Since the weaker powers threshold is high, it can incur more costs before moving beyond the threshold, a luxury the strong nation does not have. It is crucial to
6|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

understand that as a state reaches its threshold, a strategy change, although important to change the direction of war, is impossible because diminishing resolve leads to a loss of political power. Strong states cannot change their military strategy because a breach of the resolve threshold leads to a decline of domestic support for the war. This rejection of government competency is vital in understanding a governments ability to extract physical power from its resources. The governments loss of political power stems from the decreased resolve of the voting population. (Sachin Radhakrishnan, 2011) The most challenges for the United State is the internal political crisis per se; The anti-war movement began mostly on college campuses, as members of the leftist organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) began organizing teach-ins to express their opposition to the way in which it was being conducted. Though the vast majority of the American population still supported the administration policy in Vietnam, a small but outspoken liberal minority was making its voice heard by the end of 1965. This minority included many students as well as prominent artists and intellectuals and members of the hippie movement, a growing number of young people who rejected authority and embraced the drug culture. Moreover, On October 21, 1967, one of the most prominent anti-war demonstrations took place, as some 100,000 protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial; around 30,000 of them continued in a march on the Pentagon later that night. After a brutal confrontation with the soldiers and U.S. Marshals protecting the building, hundreds of demonstrators were arrested. (history.com, 1969) This protest could bring about great negative impacts for the United State armies in Vietnam; it makes them lost trust and courage to fight in Vietnam. Thus, Vietnamese leaders provided great leadership and philosophy that encourage their troops to be ready to devote their lives for the protection of their sovereignty against foreigners while the United State encountered challenges both internal and external despite its great military strengths.

7|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

In conclusion, relative power explains relative interests; relative interests explain relative political vulnerability and relative vulnerability are very critical factors to consider why strong states lose war against weak states. Using relative military strength solely as a guide for dictating outcomes is a false idea because there are other factors that come into the equation. Other factors such as resolve, political power, and the basis of military strategy heavily weigh on a nations ability to extract physical power from its potential pool of tangible resources. As can be seen in the American Revolution war and Vietnam War, Strong states could be defeated if superior military powers engaging in combat with a weaker power on the premise of relative military capability, without considering the issues of resolve and political power creates a situation. The superior powers strategy, if based on its own military strength and the promise of quick victory, will inherently lead to failure because the strategy creates a threshold that is unfit for the situation at hand. While the superior power is considered superior on the basis of physical attributes, as the conflict moves along the issues of resolve and political power come into play giving the advantage to the weak. Thus, a state needs to look beyond what it has in order to ensure victory against another country.

8|Page

RUPP, IFL, DIS

Why do strong states lose war against weak states?

References
American Revolutionary War. (n.d.). American Revolutionary War. Retrieved June 06, 2012, from American Revolutionary War: http://www.americanrevolutionarywar.net/ Arregun-Toft, I. (2001). How the Weak State Win. Cassidy, M. R. (2002). Why great powers fighter small wars badly. MILITARY REVIEW. Caverley, J. D. (2008). Why Democracies Will Fight More Small Wars Poorly. Gaddis, J. L. (2009). What Is Grand Strategy? Yale University. history.com. (1969, June 8). Vietnam war protest. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from history: http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war-protests Joe Allen. (2004, February). Vietnam: The War the U.S. Lost. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from third world traveler: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/Vietnam_War_US_Lost.html KATZENSTEIN, P. J. (2003). Small States and Small States. New Political Economy. MACK, A. (2009). WHY BIG NATIONS LOSE SMALL WARS. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Paul David Nelson. (1978). British Conduct of the American Revolutionary War: A Review of Interpretations. The Journal of American History, 623-653. Sachin Radhakrishnan. (2011, November 22). Why Strong States Lose Wars Against Weak States: . Sullivan, P. L. (2008). War Aims and War Outcomes: Why Powerful States Lose Limited Wars. SAGE.

9|Page