No Sure Victory

Daddis, G. A. (2011). No Sure Victory: Measuring U.S. Army Effectiveness and Progress in the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

2011

Link

https://academic.oup.com/book/27851

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Attrition Trap
  • The operational ledger often favored the US — favorable kill ratios, terrain temporarily held, tactical engagements won, including the military repulse of the 1968 Tet Offensive

    This sourceThe favourable body-count and kill-ratio metrics that made the operational ledger read as success.

• McNamara fallacy
  • What could be counted was enemy dead, so body count became the dominant metric of "progress," reported up the chain and used to allocate effort

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-sure-victory-9780199746873?lang=en&cc=us ×1

Registry ID ref:025e94a9e865 · see in the full table