Wars of Attrition and the Pitfall they Pose for Advanced Industrial Militaries

      Wars of attrition are something most nations and most advanced militaries generally want to avoid. A war of attrition, simply put, is a strategy of war where belligerents try and wear down each other over a prolonged period of time and inflict much resource and personnel losses to break the enemy or enemy nation's will to continue to fight. 

      Because of the immense expenditure of resources and personnel, as well as the demoralizing factor prolonged and costly warfare has on both the civilian homefront and the soldiers and fighters on the battlefield, the strategic desirability of attrition warfare between nation states is, with a few exceptions, quite low. 

      In assymetrical warfare (war between a nation and a non-state actor such as terrorist groups and insurgencies where there is a significant technological, strategic, and power differential between the primary combatants) attrition warfare is often ideal for non-state actors, especially when the war is fought on their home territory against an enemy who has invaded their territory that is far more resource-rich and far more advanced.

 Attrition and guerrilla tactics against a more powerful invader adversary is often the only strategy at the disposal of insurgents or remnants of an overthrown government trying to regain their territory from an occupying army. The power and resource superiority of your enemy in your home territory forces you to play the long game and wear your enemy down over time.

Patients is very much a virtue for non-state actors, terrorists, and insurgents in assymetrical wars of attritution. History has shown attrition and guerilla tactics against more advanced occupying industrial militaries can actually be quite effective. The attrition war the Mujahideen waged against the Soviets in Afghanistan took such an immense economic toll on the Soviet Military that they were forced to withdraw and partially contributed to the political climate that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Vietnam is a textbook example of attrition warfare the United States partook in in the 1960's and 70's that forced a withdrawal of forces and the collapse of South Vietnam.

The current U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and our strategic difficulties during the Occupation of Iraq also demonstrate the difficulties assymetrical and attrition warfare bring to advanced militaries trying to complete strategic objectives and establish their authority in a foreign land.

    The reason assymetrical wars of attrition are often successful over time is the "homefield advantage" factor. Insurgents and terrorist groups know the territory of their homeland often much better than the occupiers, and civilian populations are often willingly sympathetic to their cause against foreign invaders, or they are effectively coerced into cooperating with the insurgents or are intimidated into silence.

        It is the long game insurgents will play with more powerful enemies, and they play it rather well. The risk of invading a country significantly different from you in culture, territory, and climate is that even with your military and tactical superiority, you have a population that is going to be hostile to you quite often, the territory is often unfamiliar to you, and your enemy is more acclimated to the climate than you are. 

      Another factor is morale and the will to continue the war in the civilian population of the invading country. Attrition and prolonged wars demoralize the homefront and can lead to a backlash against the operations in the occupied territory from the civilian population at home. This creates political problems for leadership and often an increased push to end the war, especially as casualties start mounting.

     To sum this up, in order to win the long game in enemy territory, you got to have your home crowd supporting you on the homefront. The long game becomes exceedingly difficult to win if the homefront is demoralized, which is why assymetrical wars of attrition have been so successful against powerful nations like the United States in the past.

      Overall, I don't think every asymmetrical war of attrition is a doomed loss for the more advanced occupying force. I think creative tactics and strategies, outthinking and outsmarting insurgencies, precision strikes, symbolic victories, psychological tactics, and winning over the native civilian populace, and decisive strategic victories are very much ways to win these conflicts, but time is of the essence.

          You don't want to get caught up in the long game in enemy territory. That's their style, and the long game is what the enemy excels at. They are a lot more patient than superpowers are. They can wait decades to achieve their goals, which is one of the reasons, from my perspective, why nation-building in and invasions of volatile regions should be avoided as much as possible if you can.