Yep, worked fine in Vietnam. We were well ahead right up to the minute we lost. Had more of everything. lost less of everything. Except maybe the will to win.
Was our loss in Vietnam due to the losses we suffered, or the fact that the politicians wouldn't let the military do it's job with full force? I always thought the latter was more of the real reason, but if you're implying otherwise I'll gladly listen.
Sorry, I'm totally with Occhi on this one. For those who've been there the only body count that matters is how many of your friends came home.
Which is what I alluded to when comparing how many of their forces die compared to yours when you have comparible amounts of troops available. As in my comment about China or some other HUGE army, even body counts are meaningless because there are so many of "theirs" compared to "ours."
In any event I am not disagreeing that specific missions and identifiable goals being accomplished will win you a war more than anything else but if you can whittle down the opposing forces to nothing you could help achieve "victory" through attrition as well.
As Patton(?) said: "Your job isn't to die for your country, it's to force that other SOB to die for his." Germany didn't just lose because of Normandy, North Africa, Sicily and USSR counterattacking invasions, but the fact they were losing more men and equipment than they could replace.