What?
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. armed forces have proved largely inept at exercising military power as an instrument of national policy. Retired Navy Admiral James Stavridis, in his review of Harlan Ullman’s book Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Every War It Starts (Naval Institute Press, 2017), concedes that “we have become less successful over the past decades, beginning with the failures in Vietnam and continuing to the frustrations today in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
We have done poorly since World War II? And part of that allegedly poor record is because we "start" wars?
Let's see, this would include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Libya War, and Iraq War 2.0. We'll leave out smaller rapid operations like Panama and Grenada. But they were victories, for the record.
Korea: we did not start it, and we and the UN-authorized alliance stopped the North Korean invasion, counter-attacked north, and then coped with Chinese intervention. Today South Korea is a prosperous and powerful ally. Victory.
Vietnam: We did not start it, and we and our allies eventually defeated the Viet Cong insurgents, leaving the fight to North Vietnamese regulars and irregulars infiltrated south to AstroTurf an insurgency. South Vietnam fell not to insurgents but to a conventional North Vietnamese invasion after we withdrew and after our Congress cut off support sufficient to sustain the South Vietnamese military we left South Vietnam with to hold. Was that really a defeat by our military? I count that as a military victory.
The Persian Gulf War: We did not start it and in short order our UN-authorized coalition shredded Saddam's armed forces and liberated Kuwait, crippling Saddam's surprisingly advanced nuclear and other WMD programs in the process. Victory.
The Iraq War: It is debatable to say we started it given that Saddam violated the ceasefire by failing to prove he had disarmed of all WMD. And even though it is arguable that Saddam initiated armed fighting during the no-fly zone campaign, we did initiate major combat operations. So I'll stipulate for this purpose that America "started" the war. America's coalition smashed Saddam's army again. Then went on to defeat the Saddam insurgents, the al Qaeda terrorists bolstered by Syria who eventually merged with Saddam's boys, and the pro-Iran Shia insurgents. Vice President Biden boasted the end result would be one of the great achievements of the Obama administration; and President Obama boasted of the stability and democracy we left there when he ordered our troops out. You could call that four victories.
The Afghanistan War: We did not start that. Recall 9/11, if you will. We smashed the Taliban regime and while we have not crushed the Taliban for a number of reasons, the enemy has not managed to defeat our allies and Afghanistan is not a sanctuary for terrorists who plot against us. At worst it is an incomplete victory.
The Libya War: Okay, we started that one in reaction to a civil war. But we led our sophisticated European allies along with Arab allies in a successful air and special forces campaign in support of the rebels. We had to re-engage to crush the ISIL sanctuary on the coast. And Libya is far from stable and is a source of destabilizing migrants to Europe. But while the post-war has been poor, that is arguably on Europe which would not stabilize it after America carried the bulk of the military load in the actual lengthy campaign. And it did actually result in the final cleaning out of Libya's WMD programs under Khadaffi. I count that a military victory, even if the war was probably pointless.
Iraq War 2.0: We did not start that war. And while the war took way too long to wage, our small commitment on the ground to advise and provide fire support to the Iraqi effort did succeed. Victory.
This is the horrible post-World War II military record we must work to overcome? Really?
And indirectly the article questions our record in counter-insurgency.
Actually our record is pretty good. Especially if you include low-level commitments that are the ideal. Consider Colombia and El Salvador which those countries eventually won with limited but persistent American support. And even if you only count the military efforts that required large amounts of American troops, the record is actually good. I can think of two post-World War II failures off hand--Nicaragua and Cuba. And our roles weren't that big, really.
And seriously, WTF?
Why has Russia’s and China’s military performance eclipsed that of the United States? The People’s Liberation Army-Navy is succeeding in fortifying the South China Sea and expanding China’s influence out to the second island chain. Russia has occupied the Crimea, waged a largely successful insurgent war in eastern Ukraine, and supplanted the United States as the most influential power in Syria. It goes to show that innovative thinking is much more important than innovative weapons.
Let's look at that, shall we?
Let's start with Russia.
Crimea was a victory. Although Russia's credit is reduced by the recently revealed information that
we told the new Ukraine government not to resist the Crimean takeover. I had no idea how accurate my description of Russian hybrid warfare as
essentially Russia invading a country, Russia denying they are invading a country, and the West going along with the fiction was.
But how is the Donbas a victory? The very fact that Russia relied on irregulars rather than their own military reveals weaknesses. And the war drags on. A "quagmire" you might say, with Russia stalemated and paying a price under sanctions for holding the territory. And what is "insurgent" about a war that has "insurgents" using more tanks that Britain, France, and Germany deploy to their frontline units? These "insurgents" have formed units and hold territory along a frontline with the assistance of Russian battalion tactical groups that officially don't fight inside Ukraine! No American achievement on this scale would be counted a victory.
As for Syria, the multi-war rages with much of Syria out of Assad's control even after the defeat of the bulk of ISIL in Syria; and Russia, while a major factor, is in no way the most influential outside player involved there. Iran, Turkey, America, and even sub-state Hezbollah vie for that title. And if Assad goes down, Russia's investment is lost. At best it is an incomplete victory although Russian military performance has been adequate. But don't mention the smoking hulk of a crippled carrier that figuratively had to be put up on cement blocks for Russia to pretend to use if you don't want to tarnish the record.
We're not to speak of the clusterfucks of the Russo-Georgia War or the first Chechnya war, eh? Or even the incomplete nature of the brutal second one?
And China? Oh good grief. China's construction of islands and bases in the South China Sea is a sign of military prowess? In what alternative world is that a military campaign rather than something to compare to the American Army Corps of Engineers?
Oh, and for fun let's look at the American record from World War II back on wars that were such obvious winning contrasts to the post-World War II record.
The American Revolution. Sure, we started it. And we became independent. But Britain didn't really accept our independence. And we needed French help. Surely that reduces the shine of the victory?
The Quasi-War with France. Okay we were fine in that and I can't lessen the military achievement. We held our own in the undeclared war.
The Tripolitan War. We didn't start it. It took a long time, many commanders were inept despite some tactical proficiency (other than the loss of
Philadelphia) and the strategy was limited. And in the end we cut a deal and paid money to end the war and free our POWs. Victory. With an asterisk.
The War of 1812. Sure, we started that. With provocations, it is true. But we started it. And our capital was burned. And our navy and trade were swept from the sea. But we did invade Canada! And after the treaty was signed in Europe we won the Battle of New Orleans which made it seem more like a victory! But it was really a draw as Britain found it had to go to war in Europe again more than it needed to defeat America.
The Mexican War. Sure, we started that. But it was a clear and decisive military victory even if it was a classic 19th century land grab (against another state that was holding land grabbed from others, to be fair).
The Civil War. Should we count that because it is not an international war? But it was a victory. And Americans started it regardless of who you want to blame, I suppose. And the losers found acceptable replacement policies for banned slavery. But it was a Union military victory.
The Spanish-American War. We started that. It was kind of a cross between Responsibility to Protect (Cuba) and 19th century land grab (Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and Wake--that's all, I think). But it was clearly a victory.
World War I. Brief and bloody for America, but we did end up on the winning side. So a victory. But the war to end all wars did not settle the issues and just ended up leading to World War II. That taints it by the standards of today that would note
zero bike paths after the war in any of the countries involved, right?
And then we have the "good war" of World War II. We used nukes, razed cities, and almost immediately after had to wage a long Cold War to defend the chaotic and poverty-stricken western Europe because defeating enemies just created new enemies. And no bike paths, obviously. But it was a military victory aided by the passage of time that allows us to ignore details (like Kasserine or Bataan or the surrender of the bulk of a division in the early part of the Battle of the Bulge or the destruction of the monestary at Monte Cassino or the mustard gas disaster at Bari or Pearl Harbor--oh, you get the idea) that today would reveal a victory as too imperfect to count.
Our military record is fine, thank you very much.
Some people refuse to define any end state as an American military victory because it could have been better; and consider any foe's accomplishment as spectacular no matter the flaws.
The bright side is that we continually criticize our performance, which avoids hiding problems and allows us to fix them. The dark side is that nit picky criticism proliferates, too.
There. I know you come here for perspective. Consider it provided.
