This is coolbert: In the last century, the two world wars can be defined as wars of attrition. The industrialization of societies on a global basis meant that wars would not be short affairs. Wars prior to the industrial age for the most part tended to be intense, bloody, but short in duration nonetheless. With the industrial age, whole nation-states could now be mobilized and the industrial capacity of a nation put to use producing war making material on a colossal basis. Conscription, and mass production meant that enormous armies could be not only fielded, but sustained for years after initial hostilities had broken out. This was the type of war the U.S. fought in both World Wars. Wars of attrition where the victor was able to put into the field more men, ships, planes, tanks, etc., than their opposition, and use them with vigor, resolve, and determination over a number of years to achieve victory.

What has happened since the end of World War Two? The U.S. found to it's chagrin that the old pattern of doing war did not suffice to insure victory. In both Korea, and in Vietnam too, the U.S. now faced an enemy who was able to put more men into the field, [not tanks, ships, planes, etc, but just fighting troops], and fight for a prolonged period using attrition tactics of their own, to deprive the U.S. of a conclusive victory as had been had in WW1 and WW2. A draw in one war [Korea], and a loss in another [Vietnam], was the results of attempting an attrition type of warfare that had sufficed so well in the previous two World Wars.

coolbert.