28 February 2012

Sound Off! Tougher War?

Which war is tougher on a military?

- a short-term counterinsurgency with units rotated through a persistent, no-front-lines battlefield?

- an extended, conventional war of attrition with dedicated front lines that push and pull for half a decade?

Sound off in the comments below!

By: Brant


Guardian said...

Wow, I'm surprised by the choices. I was expecting "a quick but intense MRC" versus "a long, drawn-out COIN campaign" but I guess that choice is too easy.

Brant said...

the world zigs. I zag. :)

Matt Purvis said...

My money is on ANYTHING short-term, with the obvious exception of a short-term global nuclear annihilation. Casualty rates in these low intensity conflicts are comparatively low. I think morale stays higher when there is a smaller likelihood of being blow to smithereens.

James Sterrett said...

Echoing the others - short term is better, and lower casualty rates are better. Choosing between a long COIN fight and a long (and thereby by definition peer-on-peer) MCO is no contest - the MCO will be far worse.