Why when people hear the word war they think battle; fighting men who aim to kill and maim each other? Is there not another side to war where logistics and propoganda are equally as powerful?

I say this because people seem to think in terms of a war being that which is similar to the world wars; expecting modern wars to immitate the circumstances, course of action and results these two world wars developed.

Peopl have talked about cold war but this too seems rubbishry if people are not willing to admit that outside of the common bounds of the volk and zeitgeist war may exist. War does not require the acceptance of understanding of either side now does it? Perhaps because of this unknown affliction we fight an even greater war: a war with our own self.

I have created this here second post in order to not have you burdened in sight by the sheer volume of my rantings.

Wars are not won and lost; wars are negotiated. Defeat is not a loss, victory is not a win. Neither is loss a defecit or win a gain or profit. If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two imposters both the same as Kipling would say. The end is only the end of what had previously unfolded, this is to say the end is followed by a new course of events; as one person dies another is there to replace him or as he is dying he is replaced.

People will certainly look toward the past to seek principles; it is here in the past where people may fault and by chance look for expectations. To wage war with expectations is to assume you know your enemy. Instead, know yourself above all else, know your enemy if you plan to attack and break the bonds of expectations if you plan on being victorious in defence or attack.

IMO there are long and short wars

short wars were that of the past (pre 1900) where the citizens really played no role. Wars were fought in open ground away from cities and were usually short.

Most modern wars are "long" wars and require an even mix of military strength (including strategy), economy and civilian contribution. i would put logistics in the economy pile and propaganda in the civilian pile.

An example of where logistics (or lack of it) played a major role was at the end of WW1. the Germans were losing, and the Americans were going to join in a short while. Russia left the war and freed up a lot of German troops. The germans decided to do a final push (the famous Ludendorf/spring offensive) which was quite successful, and might have taken over paris (tilting the war in their favour), but logistic problems made that difficult.
Also, the Japanese in WW2 lacked oil, a reason behind their inability to maintain their war machine.