Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Letter From Military History - November 2012

By Michael W. Robbins 
Originally published by Military History magazine. Published Online: September 07, 2012 
Print Friendly
2 comments FONT +  FONT -

Football It Ain't

Military analogies are often casually applied to sports, and less often, sports analogies are applied to warfare—especially now, in football season. There are some superficial resemblances: Football is a contact sport in which two teams—each in body armor and distinct uniforms—engage in a violent struggle to conquer and control territory, and to reduce the opponent's will and ability to resist. Other parallels are evocative. There is talk of "offense" and "defense," and use of complex tactical plans, with premiums placed on surprise, maneuverability and speed. It all takes place on a formal and well-defined "battlefield" on which certain generally agreed-upon rules prevail.

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to Military History magazine

Of course, the sports/combat analogies only go so far. Military "competitors" play for keeps. Combat is directed not merely toward demoralizing or disabling opponents but toward killing them. Nevertheless, the popularity of likening some sports—football in particular—to a military campaign does suggest something important about the type of warfare to which Americans are accustomed and with which they are most comfortable—the so-called conventional war. Conventional or "normal" war, as most of us understand it, is large-scale conflict between national armies, in which organized and disciplined uniformed forces fight to dominate territory or to destroy the enemy's forces, infrastructure and ability to conduct warfare. This is the type of war the United States has fought frequently and most successfully—from the American Revolution to the Gulf War.

There is another type of war, though, that the United States has fought less successfully and certainly less comfortably—unconventional, asymmetric or even "guerrilla" warfare. With murky goals, few battle lines, no clearly identifiable enemies and few "rules," this type of warfare features a high level of improvisation rather than recognized tactics. It does not resemble football. Rather, it is like a bar fight or an exceptionally rough midnight game of capture the flag—except it too is like all modern combat, played for keeps.

Historically, this type of warfare—like the Barbary Wars, skirmishes with the Plains Indians, the Philippine War, several "police actions" in Central America, aspects of the Vietnam War and the events of September 11 and their aftermath—has been as challenging as America's conventional wars. Since such conflicts seem likely to erupt much more frequently than conventional wars, they might best be considered the real "normal" type of warfare––suggesting it is finally time to blow the whistle on that hyperbolic football analogy.


2 Responses to “Letter From Military History - November 2012”


  1. 1
    tony tramonte says:

    All true no doubt, but football is changing too, with strikes every year, owners crying poor-mouth, the NFL implementing public relations strategies in response to concerns about concussions, players whining because they are given the "franchise tag" and thus are forced to take 9.5 million for a season, etc.

    And in much the some way much of the military establishment is built around buying weapons systems and keeping the money flowing, the NFL is concerned about how they can maximize revenue by essentially having a system where they get much of their money from cable fees, in a system where they lobby Congress to make it difficult for subscribers to order stations individually.

  2. 2
    H. Davis says:

    This is an interesting line of thought, but the facts are a bit off. We were the insurgents fighting asymmetrically in the American Revolution. Also, even during conventional conflicts like WWII and the Korean War American forces conducted irregular and unconventional operations in support of conventional campaigns. The essence of warfare is winning – however that is culturally and societally defined by a combatant – and no real norms exist beyond this. The football analogy definitely has got to go though, sports are not warfare and vice versa.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy