The Psychology of Defeat

Watching Super Bowl 50 this past weekend, I was struck by the observable differences in the facial expressions of Peyton Manning and Cam Newton. Both faced incredibly tough tests of their resolve. As I watched the drama of the game unfold, the feeling became palpable early on that Newton had been beaten mentally.

By all quantitative measures, Newton was the superior athlete; younger, faster, and stronger. Most experts felt that his offense was superior and Vegas odds makers even favored the Panthers to win by five points. However, all of this would prove irrelevant. To the dismay of Panthers fans everywhere, Newton was never able to reverse the momentum of the game and his team was soundly defeated.

Both football and war are intense competitions characterized by fog, friction, and chance. Even though injury and violence are resident in both, the presence of death raises the stakes in war to a much higher level. Also, football is a game bound by enforceable rules, military conflict is not. Football is not war. However in this case, some parallels with strategic theory are evident.

History is replete with examples of the quantitatively superior country succumbing to the seemingly weaker foe. The American Revolution was one such conflict. Even after numerous tactical losses, the weaker side achieved their desired political goals. Arguably, America later would later find itself on the other end of the equation. As it left Vietnam, America had achieved many tactical successes, but left without achieving its political goals.

We can find some clues into just how important the mind is to theory in the work of the greats. From Thucydides, we learn that fear, honor, and interest drive conflict. From Clausewitz, we learn about the interplay of the paradoxical trinity (enmity, reason, and probability) and the primacy of human will. From Du Picq, we learn how moral ascendancy can set the stage for victory. And from Boyd, we learn one how decisions are made and how this can be used to one’s advantage (OODA loop).

One of the attributes that all of these ideas share is that they exist within the mind, and by their nature, are qualitative phenomena. This brings us to a potentially valuable hypothesis:

If you can defeat an adversary mentally, then, their physical defeat will follow.

If we assume this statement is true, what is the “so what” for America’s military today? First, it means that American resolve must remain strong over time to achieve favorable political outcomes. Second, America should consider re-focusing energy and resources on deliberately influencing the enemy’s will. Third, once the enemy is defeated, a visible signal is needed to end the conflict and move their will in a mutually beneficial direction.

We will probably never be able to generalize in one statement just why the Panthers lost the Super Bowl or why seemingly superior militaries lose wars they should win. However, one thing that you can take it to the bank is that adversaries will continue to test America’s will in the future. Overall, the nations ability to influence the enemy’s will and remain resilient will ultimately determine its success in a dynamic and challenging world.