America has a failed record in warfare since World War II? I appreciate our willingness to examine our wars to look for ways to improve. And maybe judgments like "we always lose" are the price of that ability. But it does get tiring. I almost admire Putin's ability to claim screwing the pooch in Ukraine is what he intended all along.
Since World War II, the United States has spent over $9 trillion and incurred over one hundred thousand casualties during wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, only to walk away without achieving strategic success in any of them.
No strategic successes?
We didn't win the Korean War?
That's news to me. That statement might have had a bit of merit in the 1960s and 1970s when South Korea was a weak autocracy that couldn't hold off North Korea without massive American help. But now? South Korea is a prosperous and advanced democracy. Its GDP exceeds Russia's--even before war-related sanctions on Russia this year. South Korea is even building a blue water navy which can help contain China.
I call that a strategic success.
Despite abandoning South Vietnam when it might have followed South Korea's path, fighting in Vietnam may well have saved other parts of Southeast Asia and South Asia from Communist subversion. States were more able to resist Communist subversion in 1975 than they were in 1960. And the war may have enhanced our reputation with the Soviets for our willingness to fight and die for Europe, which was far more important to American security.
Iraq has been a partner in killing jihadis. A fact oddly ignored routinely by people who insist America lost that war.
Sure, I'll grant that Afghanistan was a defeat. But last year we snatched defeat from the jaws of, if not victory, at least not-defeat. Although we at least did blunt the jihadi wave and kill many jihadis there. Which may have saved other countries from falling into jihadi clutches. Is that nothing?
Honestly, too many Americans wouldn't recognize an American victory if it dropped in their lap. All because we scrutinize the ugly and messy business of war, and mistake what is normal for evidence of defeat. As Sartre observed: "A victory described in detail is indistinguishable from defeat."
For our side, anyway. Enemies don't get that scrutiny. How long before somebody says that actually Putin's first 5 weeks of war with Ukraine were brilliantly conceived?
I couldn't bring myself to read the rest of the article on rebalancing the Army for "military competition." Perhaps you'll find it of value. But if an author can't even frame his point by saying how to "win" a "war" I'm not interested. Our senior military leaders already have too many who see many substitutes for victory.
NOTE: War updates continue at this post.
