Replies

It was political failure, not a military failure
————-
The enemy won, they achieved their goals in removing us. “ War” has many aspects, the one with a superior military no longer dictates the outcome, as we are witnessing worldwide.

The US is all shock and awe, depleted inside a month. They are learning much from Russia’s war of attrition, we have no defense ( or stomach) against that.

The enemy won, they achieved their goals in removing us.

Years after the actual conduct of war.

“ War” has many aspects, the one with a superior military no longer dictates the outcome, as we are witnessing worldwide.

Which is why I'm accusing you of relying upon subjective definitions.

Let's try an objective definition: war (wôr)
n.
1.
a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. By that definition and by common usage, the US won in GWI Iraq, Saddam called it quits, and GWWB set up a containment mechanism, AFTER which GWB initiated GWII, complete with a separate Congressional authorization. AFTER removing that government (see "between states") GWB set up an occupation and started "nation building" (despite Bush's promises to the contrary).

Two wars were fought, complete with beginnings and endings. That's why people refer to GWI and GWII and that's why you knew what "GWI" and "GWII meant." AFTER those wars, a separate party got involved (Iran) who was never part of either of those two wars both supporting an insurgency and tweaking the Iraqi government.

Adhering to the definition, the two wars were won. The peace was lost. Same story in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Your thesis is as if the British banking system took over this country, therefore we lost the Revolutionary War. It confuses and distorts the record of military conflicts with political change for purely rhetorical purposes. That is why subjective definitions are therefore dishonest. It's what leftists do.