Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars?

The Atlantic ^ | June 2015 | Dominic Tierney

[Responsibility2nd]

~snip~

Why does the United States struggle in war? How can it resolve a failing conflict? Can America return to victory?

Today, these are critical questions because we live in an age of unwinnable conflicts, where decisive triumph has proved to be a pipe dream.

~snip~

The price of military triumph was often immense. In the Civil War alone, there were around 750,000 American fatalities—more than the deaths in every other U.S. war combined. But if the costs of conflict were staggering, so were the benefits. The Civil War saved the Union and emancipated the slaves. World War II ensured the survival of liberal democracy in Western Europe. For Americans, golden-age conflicts became the model of what war ought to look like.

And then, all of a sudden, the United States stopped winning major wars. The golden age faded into the past, and a new dark age of U.S. warfare emerged. Since 1945, Americans have experienced little except military frustration, stalemate, and loss.

The martial dusk began with the Korean War, which deteriorated into a grim stalemate at a cost of nearly 37,000 American lives. Meanwhile, in Vietnam, the United States faced outright military defeat for the first time in its history—and, most shockingly, against North Vietnam, a “raggedy-ass little fourth-rate country,” as Lyndon Johnson put it.

After World War II, the U.S. constructed the most expensive military machine that ever existed—and endured seven decades of martial frustration.

~snip~

Since 1945, in terms of victory in a major war, the United States is one for five. The Gulf War in 1991 is the only success story. The dark age is a time of protracted fighting, featuring the three longest wars in American history (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam).

[Responsibility2nd]

I've cut and excerpted just bits and pieces out of this very long article.

Click the link. Read it. The author goes on to ask and answer questions as to why the US has failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The good news is that, since 1945, countries have almost stopped fighting each other. Conventional interstate wars are now very rare. World War II was the thunderous crescendo that presaged what historian John Lewis Gaddis called “the long peace.” Great powers haven’t engaged in direct hostilities for over 60 years."

[ealgeone]

We stopped playing to win. Gulf War I was the last time we opened the can of whip tail in a major way. Had we done this in Korea and Vietnam those would have been in the win column.

[a fool in paradise]

Not allowed to win and determine leadership. It’s invasive/colonial/imperial.

Despots should be allowed to rule with terror. < /sarc >

[cartoonistx]

Communists abroad in the 50’s and 60’s. Communists at home since then!

[LS]

I’d say we had Iraq in the bag and Afghanistan in decent shape before ZEro took over.

[mabarker1]

Politics and PC crap!

If We were fighting the “War on Terror” like We did WWII it would have been over in a year or 2.

[kenmcg]

“Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars?”

Strong lack of leadership! Our culture is in the sewer.

[bmwcyle]

There is not big profit in peace.

[sten]

you can win a war against a country by getting its govt leaders to surrender.

you cannot win a war against an ideologically driven loose knit group of people, as there is no one to sign the treaty.

all you can do is get an ever updating count of the enemy... and start decrementing it to zero

[discostu]

The big thing that’s changed is the definition of “winning war”. We now look down stream at further events to see how things play out. Nobody gets declared a winner of a war anymore for at least 20 years. By the old definition we’re undefeated since Vietnam. By the current definition I think the only war we’ve really won was the Civil War, maybe 1812.

[DownInFlames]

As a survivor of Nam, we must have the will to win. The only way to win is decisively, quickly, and hold the peace. We failed in Korea, Nam, and GWII due to bad leadership in DC and it took too long to secure the peace.

The voters have no patience for long drawn out wars. With today’s military, there is no excuse for LOSING. Watch what happens this summer when martial law is declared.

[PGR88]

Gulf War I was the last time we opened the can of whip tail in a major way.

Not even. I remember Bush1 stating before the war started - The goal was not to depose Saddam, we would only seek to remove him from Kuwait, Foreign soldiers would not remain in Muslim lands.

The USA had the roads open to Baghdad. Managing Iraq would have been much easier in 1991 vs. 2003. What he should have said is - "if war comes, we will pursue it to the end, and and WE will decide what happens to the Government of Saddam and Iraq."

[Responsibility2nd]

We stopped playing to win.

___________________________________

Bingo.

I believe this also applies to our so-called War on Drugs or War on Poverty.

Especially a WOD. War? Seriously? If we were truly engaging in a War on Drugs, we would see tens of thousands dead or in jail every year. Until America resembled some Islamic hell-hole or even North Korea.

But we make believe we are fighting this WOD, yet at the same time the gubmint profits off of asset forfeitures and in the case of the war on poverty, they profit off of the political base that poverty brings.

[Responsibility2nd]

We (Bush actually) surrendered in the War on Terror.

The first, best and only place we should be fighting a WOT? Right here in our own backyard. With border fences and strict controls of immigrants and muzzies.

[Wolfie]

“We” don’t really go to war anymore. Somebody else does, and “We” barely notice.

[mabarker1]

Works for Me.

But that's Common Sense- something that is apparently short in supply these days.

[sparklite2]

Agreed. We accepted the notion of fighting limited wars, ignoring Napoleon’s advice, “If you’re going to take Vienna, take Vienna.” In other words half-pursued war aims result in half-victories at best.

[Theoria]

'The author goes on to ask and answer questions as to why the US has failed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. '

Part of that has to do with borders and identity. It was very easy to kill Germans and Japs, and to control their borders and supply lines.

The difficulty with Iraq and Afghanistan, is that it is they have transnational support[Islam] and 'armies'. The areas are easily resupplied with fodder, nor has there been any will to control such flow of support. Without ever controlling those factors, there will never be peace.

[Theoria]

The Sec. of Defense during the first GW, Dick Cheney has a pretty obvious position at the time:

'Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it — eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

[PapaBear3625]

We stopped playing to win. Gulf War I was the last time we opened the can of whip tail in a major way.

In WW2, we were willing to kill as many as we needed to kill in order to win. We were willing to use flame throwers on bunkers. We were willing to bomb civilian cities to rubble, and kill enemy men, women and children by the tens of thousands.

The only reason the USSR didn't make a move on us during the Cold War was that they were certain that we would respond by incinerating their half of the world.

This is no longer the case.