[RD] In a war that ends in status quo, the defender is the victor

[Lohrenswald]

Is what I think.

If the war is indecisive or "ends in a draw", by which I mean no country/side make concessions to the other, the attacker has failed in taking what it wants from the defender/attacked, while the defender has succeeded in avoiding having lost anything (except men and resources, but that goes for both sides).

Take for example the war between Iraq and Iran. Iraq attacked Iran, I believe even with intent to take territory, but where driven out. While Iran failed in its counterinvasion, it had succeeded in driving Iraq out. Therefore Iran won.

There might be some grey area, like in the first world war when both sides sort of anticipated the war (although that one notably didn't "end in a draw").

Do you agree?

This isn't a matter that concerns me greatly, and for all I know you all actually have find this matter settled, but it sprung to my mind so eh why not

 

[Flying Pig]

Not necessarily. Had the American Civil War ended in a return to the status quo ante bellum, we would almost certainly say that the CSA had won - and they would have achieved everything that they set out to do.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I would argue that in the case of the american civil war, status quo ante bellum would be the southern states back into USA, while them leaving would be a change.
I guess you could argue that the civil war was declared after secession, but that's really just semantics.

 

[Joecoolyo]

This is very much the case in asymmetrical conflicts as well, such as between an insurgent group and a state. The insurgent, terrorist, or secessionist (etc.) group's goal is to not lose. As long as they don't lose, they win. While whatever state or large organization is fighting them loses if they don't win.

Not necessarily. Had the American Civil War ended in a return to the status quo ante bellum, we would almost certainly say that the CSA had won - and they would have achieved everything that they set out to do.

It's tricky, I'd say. The CSA's goal, much like above, was basically not to lose. As long as they didn't lose, they would win their independence.

However that doesn't really mesh with the idea that they were the aggressor. It's kind of weird to think about the aggressor's goal being not to win, but rather not to lose.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think Lohren raises an interesting point, that we often (in hindsight) cast the losing party as the aggressor. Nobody at the time saw the secession of the CSA as a declaration of war - which is why bombarding or reinforcing Fort Sumter was seen by both sides as a huge decision - but we cast them as such in retrospect because we like to believe that good guys don't start fights. So too with the Viet Cong and other insurgent groups, most of whose members were living perfectly happily in peace until somebody marched into their country with tanks.

 

[nc-1701]

I think it's fairly obvious that the North was the aggressor in the American civil war, not to say the North weren't the "good guys", but they were definitely the aggressor.

Also I would be careful about using "lost territory" as too important of a metric. Iran suffered horribly in the Iran-Iraq war and lost badly at the end when Iraq started wide spread use of gas. Of course Iraq didn't win either as they were essentially bankrupted and forced into the disastrous invasion of Kuwait 3 years later.
I guess that's a win for Iran in that they weren't destroyed, but it's certainly not a strong win.

 

[jackelgull]

Also, remember that who began the war is not always clear. Unless it is extremely obvious (Ie. US invasion of Iraq), it is hard to tell who launched the first provocation. One can call Athenian foreign policy aggressive, but it was Sparta that began the Peloponnesian War.

 

[Ajidica]

This is very much the case in asymmetrical conflicts as well, such as between an insurgent group and a state. The insurgent, terrorist, or secessionist (etc.) group's goal is to not lose. As long as they don't lose, they win. While whatever state or large organization is fighting them loses if they don't win.

The guerillas can lose, and still win.
In Portugal's Colonial Wars they had pretty handily beat the MPLA, FNLA, UNITA, and FRELIMO by the Carnation Revolution but the process of 'winning' the colonial wars had generated enough discontent in the army that they overthrew the government in the Carnation Revolution.

 

[Cutlass]

It's fair to say that the Americans were the aggressor in the American Revolution. That is, they certainly started the war, even if they did not invade the other country. But they were also the defender for the most part during the war. And the majority of the war was indecisive. Yet they won, and the status quo was broken. So I don't think the idea holds for all circumstances.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The guerillas can lose, and still win.
In Portugal's Colonial Wars they had pretty handily beat the MPLA, FNLA, UNITA, and FRELIMO by the Carnation Revolution but the process of 'winning' the colonial wars had generated enough discontent in the army that they overthrew the government in the Carnation Revolution.

Interesting! Did not know that!

Basically, the rules of winning and losing for insurgencies or guerrilla groups are really odd.

 

[Zkribbler]

95% of insurgencies end with negotiated settlements.

 

[warpus]

It's not so simple, sometimes the defender does not want to keep the status quo either and has other strategic interests in mind during defense.

 

[BvBPL]

What about the War of 1812? The US was the aggressor, but the UK's war goals were so overly broad that they would have been hard pressed to actually win the war on their own terms. It is hard to say who won the war, but Tecmuseh obviously lost it.

Then there is the War if the Roses. Had Lancaster merely fought to a standstill then it would have hardly been a victory as the underlying issues would have remained. .

 

[warpus]

Canada obviously won the war of 1812. You might as well let us have this one.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Sorry about this, but basically none of the following remarks matter in any way, or they miss

It's fair to say that the Americans were the aggressor in the American Revolution. That is, they certainly started the war, even if they did not invade the other country. But they were also the defender for the most part during the war. And the majority of the war was indecisive. Yet they won, and the status quo was broken. So I don't think the idea holds for all circumstances.

This is just bad wording on my part. I used the word defender for the part which was originally attacked. So while the americans "played defensively" most of that war, by my (not so great, I can admit) wording, England was still the defender

It's not so simple, sometimes the defender does not want to keep the status quo either and has other strategic interests in mind during defense.

This is true, but it also doesn't matter to my point. I actually brought up the Iran-Iraq war, where, after the Iraqis were driven out, Iran wanted to overwhelm Iraq. This failed, but doesn't change the fact that Iran succeded in not losing to the agressors, to borrow joecoolyo's language

What about the War of 1812? The US was the aggressor, but the UK's war goals were so overly broad that they would have been hard pressed to actually win the war on their own terms. It is hard to say who won the war, but Tecmuseh obviously lost it.

I don't know nearly anything about this war, but if America was the agressor, and Britain didn't have to do any concessions to them afterwards, Britain won. The fact that they had more goals doesn't change this.
If you would like to earn 200 dollars on a casino, but only earn 100 dollars, you have still won.

Then there is the War if the Roses. Had Lancaster merely fought to a standstill then it would have hardly been a victory as the underlying issues would have remained.

Phyrric victories are still victories. The same again about the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq lost many people in the war, and was attacked with chemical weapons, but by the end of the day, they drove away the invaders.

 

[Hygro]

I think the basic idea is clear: they who wish to preserve the current order (defenders) win if they stop they who wish to change the current order (attackers) fail to change the current order, leading to a preservation of the status quo.

It's a tautology, but perhaps an important one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What about the War of 1812? The US was the aggressor, but the UK's war goals were so overly broad that they would have been hard pressed to actually win the war on their own terms. It is hard to say who won the war, but Tecmuseh obviously lost it.

So the US forced England to take its goods and impress US sailors on the high seas during the Napoleonic Wars?

 

[Tahuti]

This is very much the case in asymmetrical conflicts as well, such as between an insurgent group and a state. The insurgent, terrorist, or secessionist (etc.) group's goal is to not lose. As long as they don't lose, they win. While whatever state or large organization is fighting them loses if they don't win.

Well, in spite of Native American insurgencies, no one disputes control of the US over lands once freely roamed by the Iroqious or the countless of other Native American tribes. Likewise, Russia hasn't had any troubles colonising Siberia. Australia didn't face too much troubles with Aborginals. As long as the host nation is more numerous or significantly more advanced than the guerilla side and linked over land, guerillas don't stand a chance.

The thing, guerillas are slightly more powerful these days because communication technologies have made warfare more like water: You don't have to break, everything becomes like a swarm. Enticed by corporate lobbying and again, modern communication advances which have strengthened transnational organisations are institutions like corporations (duh) and religions, politicians are tempted to give up national sovereignty to international law and transnational institutions, thus weakening the state against non-state actors. What also helps is centralisation enacted in the past: States are only interested in protecting the central point of failure - the seat of government. Everything else is left undefended and can easily be taken over by guerillas. Or, if government change is the goal, they can throw everything they got on the capital.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Whether things go back to the status quo or not, from a practical standpoint no one has "won" a war in a few centuries. When the stakes were the Kings' titles to land that was easily worked, and the only costs were peasants and other retainers and more of those were easy to breed, wars were winnable. Since then they are just about losing the least.

 

[BvBPL]

I don't know nearly anything about this war, but if America was the agressor, and Britain didn't have to do any concessions to them afterwards, Britain won. The fact that they had more goals doesn't change this.

If you would like to earn 200 dollars on a casino, but only earn 100 dollars, you have still won.

Not if the position of the defender was materially damaged by the war. After the US declared war on the UK, the UK allied with Tecumseh, promising him the creation of a First Nation federation in the Great Lakes region. Despite some earlier gains against the US, Tecumseh and his British allies failed in this goal. Tecumseh was utterly defeated, and with him the hopes of a First Nation British ally in the Great Lakes rendering the uk impotent in that region and unable to respond to US territorial claims on that area. At the same time, the resolution of the war, while it basically achieved neither US nor UK war goals, did lead to the refinement of the borders between the US and Canada. As a result, the UK lost previously viable claims to US land and vice versa.

It seems you are thinking if war as a zero sum game. That the loss of one party is the gain of another. That is not the case. For example....

Phyrric victories are still victories.

Not if the war is waged to ensure stability. If Lancaster had merely fought York to a standstill we would have either an unstable English nation that would have rapidly fallen into war again or the nation would have split in twain. The goal of both parties was a strong English nation with their scion in the throne. It was quite possible that this wouldn't have happened for either side. The failure of York to achieve this goal wouldn't have directly translated into a success for Lancaster.

I think a prime example would be a civil war for the control of a nation that resulted in the split of the country. I can't think of an example off the too of my head, but someone else might.