"So far as we know, few, if any, victories are traceable to weapons.": part 3 of 3

Most of this post will be stolen from my favorite military philosopher, Patton, via the inestimable Patton Society.
All emphases have been added by me.

THE EFFECT OF WEAPONS ON WAR
Major George S. Patton, Jr., Cavalry
Cavalry Journal
November 1930

When Samson took the fresh jawbone of an ass and slew a thousand men therewith, he probably started such a vogue for the weapon, particularly among the Philistines, that for years no prudent donkey dared to bray. Yet, despite it's initial popularity it was discarded and now appears only as a barrage instrument in acrimonious debate.

Turning from sacred to profane history, we find it replete with similar instances of military instruments, each in it's day heralded as the "dernier cri," the key to victory. Yet, each in it's turn retiring to it's proper place of useful, though not spectacular, importance.
...
The wrestling adage that there is a block for every hold applies equally to war. Each new device is invariably followed by it's self induced counter. The utilization of these new methods and their counters, these holds and blocks, is highly useful in that they add to our combat repertoire. But their employment is fraught with danger, if, beguiled by their transitory preeminence, we place our reliance wholly upon them.
...
In attempting to assign just valuations to the latest lethal devices, we shall not go far wrong if we keep in mind the lessons of history. In the first place, living in a mechanical age, we are prone to exaggerate the value of machines. Again, lay opinion is chiefly formed by the press, where novelty is always "front page stuff." Erroneous habits of thought also play a part. During the World War, correspondents were not allowed at the extreme front where the actual bludgeoning of war took place. Necessity imposed on them the task of making copy of what the saw; guns and machines, mostly; hence it happened that they put undue emphasis on these elements and so formed in the minds of their readers a habit of reverence for machines.
...
The same remark might justly be applied to those who now proclaim that the airplane should be the sole means of waging future wars. ... Air attacks will be numerous and bloody; such is the nature of combat. They will be no more conclusive than are the independent attacks of any of the other arms. As for bombing raids against cities, London still stands, and the inevitability of reprisals will tend to reduce still more this messy business. The airplane is here to stay. It is a great arm, but it has no more replaced all others than did gunpowder.
...
So far as we know, few, if any, victories are traceable to weapons.

Caeser destroyed the poorly armed Gauls and he did the same to the armed Legions of Pompeii.

In 1866, Prussia defeated the less well armed Austrians; in 1870, she destroyed the better armed French.

Advertisements to the contrary notwithstanding, Big Business does not owe it's bigness to a filing system (a business weapon).

Already in this article we have made use of part of Napoleon's magnificent definition of genius. Here it is in full. He says, "Genius is the ability to utilize all the means at hand for the accomplishment of the end sought."

The thought applies equally to weapons. We must use them all. To us it seems that those persons who would scrap the old and rely only on the new are on a mental parity with the poor man who pawns his shirt and trousers to buy an overcoat, only to find that it is burdensome in summer and not wholly satisfying even in January. Wars are fought with men, not weapons. It is the spirit of the men who fight, and the spirit of the men who lead, which gains the victory. In biblical times this spirit was ascribed, probably rightly, to the Lord. It was the Spirit of the Lord, courage, which came mightily upon Samson at Lehi that gained the victory. It was not the jawbone of an ass.

Again, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars on high-tech weapons systems... and losing wars to third-world adversaries in Iraq & Afghanistan???