genius

Of course, I do not and did not argue there are "no decisive battles." That would be silly, given the long and winding course of world military history in which there have been quite a few. But fewer in the modern era of competing empires and grand coalitions than in simpler times or in regional "systems" such as city-states warring with each other, where the forces and simplified politics engaged meant that one could indeed decide the outcome of a war on a single raw, red day.

The article under discussion is an article that does require consideration and operates on almost two different theses. Thesis A is that wise leadership is a myth and makes no difference since Thesis B, wars must be attritional to be effective, and that there are no decisive battles. No doubt the first thesis has been debated on this forum or might be as a hand grenade of long duration in the future. The second premise cannot stand in light of military history unless looked at very subjectively and with limited examples.

There is much in this argument, especially if one understands attrition in the broader sense of not simply expending materiel, but also a societal or governmental will to fight. Thus, World War Two can be seen as the grinding down of Germany and Japan through numbers and industrial production, and Vietnam of the Communists wearing down American political support for the South. On the other hand, there are examples of a decisive blow overcoming superior numbers and potential strength: the Israeli victory in the Six Day War is a case in point.

This is very interesting essay by Cathal J. Nolan of Boston University about the glorification of military "genius" and decisive battles are largely false mythologies, and that most wars are won by long drawn-out strategies of attrition to grind the enemy down.

https://aeon.co/ideas/wars-are-not-won-by-military-genius-or-decisive-battles