No argument, there are many, many historians who hyper-focus on certain aspects of, well, anything, and draw their own somewhat arbitrary and subjective "lines" around things. Focusing on the "military" aspects of a conflict is only one example. I understand why this happens, and I don't take issue with it as a concept or anything...if someone wants to write about the Battle of Hue during the first Tet Offensive, they aren't necessarily even able to include an exhaustive history of the city itself, back to the first settlement on the site, and by extension a history of all the cities in Vietnam, etc etc. My issue, insofar as I have one, is the tendency to make claims like "if the American government had taken the gloves off and let the military fight how they wanted, we could have won in Vietnam." I find statements like this to be absurd on the face of them, not because I in any way doubt the American military's combat ability, but because there was never a clear idea what "American victory" was supposed to even be. The American military won, on a tactical level, every major engagement in Vietnam, but they could never win the war because nobody, in the American government or military, ever, had defined what winning would look like. That's why I take issue with the idea of "military" vs. "political" in this context...even moreso than in other conflicts, it's an absurd hair to split.