The Myth of Military Myopia: Democracy, Small Wars, and Vietnam

@article{Caverley2010TheMO,
  title={The Myth of Military Myopia: Democracy, Small Wars, and Vietnam},
  author={Jonathan D. Caverley},
  journal={International Security},
  year={2010},
  volume={34},
  pages={119-157}
}
A capital- and firepower-intensive military doctrine is, in general, poorly suited for combating an insurgency. It is therefore puzzling that democracies, particularly the United States, tenaciously pursue such a suboptimal strategy over long periods of time and in successive conflicts. This tendency poses an empirical challenge to the argument that democracies tend to win the conflicts they enter. This apparently nonstrategic behavior results from a condition of moral hazard owing to the… 
Explaining U.S. Military Strategy in Vietnam: Thinking Clearly about Causation
Cost distribution theory suggests that the costs to the median voter in a democracy of fighting an insurgency with firepower are relatively low compared to a more labor-intensive approach. Therefore,
The age of asocial war: democratic intervention and counterinsurgency in the twenty-first century
Why, in spite of past failures, do liberal democracies continue to intervene militarily and fight counterinsurgency wars? The answer is grounded in learning. Liberal democracies acknowledge past
Who Lost Vietnam? Soldiers, Civilians, and U.S. Military Strategy
Scholars have long argued about why the United States pursued a conventional military strategy during the Vietnam War rather than one based on counterinsurgency principles. A recent article in this
Power and Democratic Weakness
While realists and neoconservatives generally disagreed on the Iraq invasion of 2003, nothing inherent in either approach to foreign policy accounts for this. Neoconservatism’s enthusiasm for
Resolve in International Politics
Why do some leaders and publics display remarkable persistence in war, while others “cut and run” at the first sign of trouble? Why did the French remain in the First World War despite having
No Victory Without Movement: The Crimean Crisis In The Context of Russian Military Strategy
What factors influence the development of a state’s military strategy? The study of military strategy has focused primarily on institutional constraints imposed by state apparatuses, material and
Selective Leviathans: Explaining State Strategies of Counterinsurgency and Consolidation
This paper seeks to explain why states adopt certain strategies within civil war. Rationalists observe state incumbents often select seemingly "sub-optimal" strategies, either brutal or halfhearted,
Transformative Invasions: Western Post-9/11 Counterinsurgency and the Lessons of Colonialism
The shooting side of the business is only 25 percent of the trouble and the other 75 percent lies in getting the people of this country behind us.- British General Gerald Templer, Malaya, 1952'Having
Forever wars: Divided government and the termination of interventions in support of civil war governments
Why do third-party states continue interventions in support of governments fighting civil wars even when continuing to do so appears futile from a military standpoint? To answer this question, we
Why Allies Rebel
Why do powerful intervening militaries have such difficulty managing comparatively weak local partners in counterinsurgency wars? Set within the context of costly, large-scale military interventions
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 81 REFERENCES
Explaining U.S. Military Strategy in Vietnam: Thinking Clearly about Causation
Cost distribution theory suggests that the costs to the median voter in a democracy of fighting an insurgency with firepower are relatively low compared to a more labor-intensive approach. Therefore,
Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict
The Vietnam and Algerian wars have demonstrated that the overwhelming conventional military superiority of major powers is no guarantee against their defeat in wars against small nations. For
Constraints on America's Conduct of Small Wars
It is the characteristic military dilemma of a world power that it finds itself forced to prepare for two entirely different kinds of wars, large-scale conflicts on the continent of Europe, on the
Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War.
Democracies are less likely to fight wars with each other. They are also more likely to prevail in wars with autocratic states. I offer an explanation of this syndrome of powerful pacifism drawn from
Conflict of Myths: The Development of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War
"Conflict of Myths is an in-depth devastating critique of how the U.S. government and its military services approached and misconceived the problems of guerilla warfare and counterinsurgency conflict
Democracies at War
Why do democracies win wars? This is a critical question in the study of international relations, as a traditional view--expressed most famously by Alexis de Tocqueville--has been that democracies
Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine between the Wars
This text employs a cultural approach to take issue with the conventional wisdom that military organizations inherently prefer offensive doctrines. It argues instead that a military's culture affects
The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked
Few analysts of U.S. involvement in Vietnam would agree with the provocative conclusion of this book. The thesis of most postmortems is that the United States lost the war because of the failure of
The Israel defense forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the poor performance?
Abstract Whereas in the past, Israeli successes on the battlefield compensated for deterrence and/or early warning failures, in the Second Lebanon War serious problems in Israeli military
How Democracies Lose Small Wars
How Democracies Lose Small Wars. By Gil Merom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 310p. $65.00 cloth, $22.99 paper. The essence of Gil Merom's argument in this book is that democratic strong
...
...