Take No Casualties

  • Eikenberry K
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

While battle losses, then, are unquestionably a matter of vital concern both to heads of state and to those who command their armed forces, it is not at all clear to what extent it is constructive for a military to explicitly include the goal of casualty limitation as a cornerstone of its doctrine. I will argue that, at least from an American perspective, there may be subtle, but nevertheless real, long-term risks in doing so. Before such speculation, however, it is useful to first discuss why all states and their militaries seek to reduce casualties, and then to elaborate on the reasons why US political and military leaders have been particularly and increasingly averse to high numbers of fatalities in combat actions. It is only by understanding the nature of this undercurrent, which seems to be leading America irresistibly to place ever higher premiums on the avoidance of any deaths in combat, that we can reflect on the possible consequences in an informed manner.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eikenberry, K. W. (1996). Take No Casualties. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1773

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free