Well, we won the invasion of Panama, though that was more of an oversized SWAT raid. And then there’s Grenada. But I’d disagree about losing wars. We spent a trillion $ turning Iraq into an Iranian puppet state, and spent another trillion taking Afghanistan from the Taliban and then giving it back to them. Those might not have been battlefield losses, but they are losses nonetheless.
As you point out, the article is discussing battlefield losses. You are bringing up atrocious POLITICAL losses. This is one of the down sides of having civilians in charge of declaring war, and having a civilian suddenly become the Commander of the most powerful military in human history. (And to be sure, there are plenty of historically-proven down sides to having only military folks in charge of the military. Everything in life is a 2-edged sword.)
I found that “We’ve never actually lost a war” comment curious as well. Perhaps the author defines losing as being occupied by an enemy nation.
As I see it, we most certainly lost in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. In each case, our objectives were not meet. And we were forced to leave, giving the enemy complete control of the country.
It is important to note that these were NOT battlefield loses. Our military performed superbly in each case. These loses were entirely due to political arrogance and incompetence.
Vietnam is entirely on LBJ.
Afghanistan is entirely on George W. Bush.
I really don’t know which man disgusts me more. Perhaps it’s a tie. But I really don’t blame the presidents who followed them. They were just bit players.