I love all the excuses in this comment thread. It doesn't even matter if your excuse is correct or not: the u.s. military still cannot win wars and that is the point. Period.

The US made the same errors in Afghanistan as Vietnam: it backed a corrupt regime that offered no viable alternative to the enemy and failed utterly to understand the nuances of the local culture. I'm a Brit, so it's only fair to add that we were no better. A prime example of utterly failing to understand the local culture was the Brits sending in a heavily armed FEMALE officer to lecture local elders at a Shura. No-one told this woman that NO Afghan man will listen to a women in this situation. Needless to say, the meeting went nowhere and lead to a great deal of anger and hostility.

Has it won its wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? It is very arguable, depending on how you want to define "victory".

Back in the day, every jarhead that was there said the same thing when I asked if the U.S. in general or the Marines in particular could have won the war? All said, "The Marines could have done it in 6 weeks."
The only reason we didn't was Congress wouldn't let them. There was no major effort to advance into North Vietnam and hold it. If they were seen first U.S. forces couldn't shoot first. If the v.c. or the regular N.V. Army crossed "ANY" border they weren't to be pursued.
Did the U.S. Navy get beat back by their mighty fleet? Was their vast air force superior to the aircraft and pilots of the U.S.A.F., U.S.N., & U.S.M.C.? Did their unbeatable ground forces wipe out the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and coalition militaries?
O.K. we let them off because if the answer to any one of those questions were yes (then they would have all been yes) then that would mean that some bamboo communist-puppet cess pool was more powerful then the nation that won WW2, fed and was feeding the world, had and has the most powerful military on earth, and was putting men on the moon.
Going to war is a terrible thing for a nation and it's people to do.
Going to war without the intention of winning is unpardonable.

You're comment is absolutely accurate, cogent and well said!

With respect, Dale, I don't think you have learnt much from the Vietnam experience. Marines are good soldiers but they would never have beaten the Viet Cong. When a Viet Cong official was told that the US had won every battle against his side, he said correctly that this was true "but irrelevant". No matter how good the soldiers sent against them were, and how many times they kicked the VC backsides, the VC knew that all they had to do to win was to hang on and send Americans home in body bags and the US public opinion would do the rest. And so it proved. Another problem is that we have to stop believing our own propaganda. The US marines are good but they also have massive funding and resources behind them. Maybe, in today's often assymetrical warfare, they are not THAT good. No offence meant in this comment, either. As a Brit, I now that we've had our own assed whooped many a time too.

Everyone of you is missing the point. Wars are not fought to be won any more. They are fought to make money. "Beware of the military industrial complex. "
Had we stayed in Vietnam a little longer as a full combat fighting force, we would have won. However, the media was against it and only showed the American public the basic things that the media wanted them to see in order to lessen their resolve to actually fight to win.
It doesnt matter what the ratio of munitions is, if we are not allowed to fight a war in a manner it takes to win, then we are still fighting with one hand tied behind our back. It is the ROI that makes a difference.

Since the ROI is set by those at the top, then that is the problem, since they are also making the money.

No one likes civilians getting killed in battle, but sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. A majority of us on here 5hat have served know that the GWOT wars could have been fought and won in a lot less time had we been able to fight like the warriors we train to be.

Come on, Jeremiah. As the author says, the US laid down some serious ordnance on the VC. The US army under Westmorland had great autonomy and freedom of maneuver too.

That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much lead you drop on a target, if the 'powers that be' don't allow you to actually fight a war like a war should be fought, then it will never end in a positive way.
How many times would the U.S. Army take a hill or piece of land from the VC, only to pull back a day later and allow the VC to move back into that location.

Again, had we stuck it out a few days longer, the VC were going to actually surrender and end the war. Unfortunately, the U.S. in general could not stomach it any longer and we pulled out.

Korea was lost due to lack of planning followed by politics. The US force was thrown into a war with minimal resources at the beginning. When they organized and went on the offensive, they dominated. It wasn't until China entered the conflict and resolve weakened that the US was stopped. It was a matter of political will, not inability.

Vietnam, likewise, was lost due to politics. Had the military been allowed to actually prosecute a war, the conflict would have been decisive, and the end would have come quickly. Instead, the war was limited by politicians to avoid upsetting the neighbors. That's how you plan a loss... not a victory.

As for the various wars in the Middle East, it started with the Rumsfeld Doctorine, then became the Obama Administration's fight. Essentially, the Rumsfeld Doctorine was to "barely" win the war with the idea that the radicals that wanted to attack the US would instead fight in their local war. In time, all the resources that would have otherwise been put toward future terror attacks on US soil would be depleted in war.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, was sympathetic to the enemy, and initiated rules of engagement that made it nearly impossible to be effective. What made this worse was that the rules of engagement were made known to the enemy, who made sure to use them to their advantage. (Before anyone attacks me on this point, I am NOT claiming Obama wanted the enemy to win. I am simply saying that his sympathy for the enemy caused changes that made it impossible.)

As for a future war...

The US has "the most powerful fighting force in history". Anyone who argues differently is mistaken. Today, the US can win ANY war in the air or on the sea. With the exception of a few specific locations (China and Russia, maybe a couple of others) the US can win ANY land war. The only things limiting the success of the US military are political interference, public opinion (in the US), and, in the case of China/Russia, the direct involvement of developed militaries ON THE GROUND.

The only wars the US CAN'T win today are ground wars against China or IN Russia. We can beat Russia anywhere but in Russia. We can not beat China in a ground war (anywhere near Chinese territory), and would be foolish to try.

The US can win any war. True, but only if the enemy fights the kind of war the US wants it to fight. I think the US did well in Korea. It lost ground because MacArthur was a megalomaniac and beneath the PR, an average commander. Luckily, he was canned and replaced by one of the most underrated great generals of US history - Matthew Ridgeway - who saved their bacon.

VietNam like Korean conflicts were not declared wars and we were told not to go beyond a certain point on the map. You need to declare war and go for the juglar vein. Take north and south, not just South.

To what end? Would it not be better to allow them to enjoy peace and freedom? Just as we would like others to let us enjoy our peace and freedom?

Milo VietNam would be part of China now. China has taken parts of Tibet, wanted Cambodia, VietNam, and even India. Start learning your Mandrin so you will fit in when we lay down our arms.

I think not. Remember, Vietnam was the only nation that beat Genghis Khan's armies in a land battle. And more recently they beat the Japanese, the French and the Americans back-to-back.

They're tough little buggers... and China is an ancient enemy.

But your theory is that China is somehow bent on a land invasion of the USA. Hm. Interesting.

Good point. One wonders whether generals and military bureaucrats every read history books before they waddle off on these adventures. It should have been a massive red flag in Vietnam and Afghanistan that they nations have never been defeated. We Brits carried out a fighting retreat in 1842 from which only ONE man returned.

The people who decide which wars to start and why they should be started are absolutely not the same people as the ones who read history books. Their motivations are entirely different... and they would only be interested in something written in a book if they could use it to build their case for war.

Money, power and influence. Those are the reasons people convince nations to go to war. And they care not whether these wars be ridiculous, unwinnable, or even disastrous for the countries they claim to serve. They're in it strictly for self-advancement.

Just my opinion, of course. But it is the correct opinion.

The real problem is not just that we can't win our wars-- once you invade a nation they're going to hate you until you leave-- but that we can't even escape from them. Eighteen years after we went into Afghanistan we're still stuck there.

The generals know this. That's why the current tactic is to sell weapons, expertise, training and satellite intel to some other country. Who will obligingly use its own soldiers to fight our battles. Saudi Arabia is our current proxy.

But in Venezuela the invasion is off. For some reason Colombia and Brazil both have developed cold feet.

We also think that these people think like us. We Brits were setting up schools as if it were in Surrey (a rich part of SE England). No realization at all that 5 mins after we left, these places would be destroyed and the girls sent back to semi-slavery.

The root of the problem is that Nigeria never should have been set up as one country. It isn't. And the Christian south of the country took well to British standards of education. While the Muslim north took deep offense at that.

The Igbo definitely should have had their own country. They are not in the slightest like any of their neighbors, and are actually a very advanced people.

romans learned this lesson, they gave up conquering new far territories and preferred to divide and bribe their enemies and contain them. "divide et empera" doctrine. USA politicians must study the world balance management of UK and Rome.

If the elephant in the room just leaves the world alone, it will recover its own balance.

Yes but how will the Military Industrial Complex survive? (unfortunate sarcasm).

That has been the big question since the end of WWII. Most wartime industries retooled to make Studebakers and Kelvinators and Zeniths and Crosleys, to serve the public. But we still had a lot of industrial capacity left over, capacity they didn't want to just dismantle. So they kept cranking out fighter jets and atom bombs. There was no customer base on earth with pockets as deep as the US Defense Dept.

And we had a lot on our wish list, in terms of fighting the godless hordes. We spent a lot of money in places like Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Turkey and across the world. No sacrifice was too great to confront the Commie Menace. So it was a natural fit, that the MIC should expand to fit our confrontational needs.

there have been two world wars for balance and the current world scenario is not stable. Pacific Theatre is sitting on powder keg. The risk of universal race to rearmament and consequent accidents is high.

Without US agitation there is no powder keg in East Asia. China prefers to prosper in the economic sphere. A war would be bad for business. The same is the case for Iran and Russia.

The US is the world's great destabilizer.

Yes, because China would simply sit back and play nice within their own borders. Just like they are NOT doing now. Chima is a huge bully taking over areas that aren't theirs. Had it not been for the U.S. China, Russia, Germany and a few other countries and terrorists would have done their damndest to invade, conquer and enslave the occupants of those countries they invaded.

When it comes to what China might do, we have to rely on speculation. Because they haven't actually done anything, not since the 1950 occupation of Tibet. Not one thing outside their own borders. They've been terrible, of course, inside their borders.

But when it comes to the US, we're doing terrible things to other countries all the time. It's unpardonable how we could have destroyed Iraq under false pretenses and not offered to pay for rebuilding the country. Unpardonable.

Like exporting Billy Joel albums. We'll never forgive you Yanks for that. Or for calling football "soccer"! ::))

Well that's a bit of the old pot calling the kettle black. How about chips? Everybody knows those deep-fried potato sticks are called "fries". Actual chips come in bags labeled "potato chips". Utterly different. :)

the threats on ROC, claims on Senkaku and building up militray bases against rights of Philippines arent destabilizing ?

Threats and bluster between mainland and Nationalist China have been par for the course over the past 60 years. Not much new there, it intensifies whenever Taiwan is about to hold an election.

As for the Senkaku dispute-- and other conflicting claims in the South China Sea-- there are some problems. But then, China is surrounded by bases like those in Okinawa and Guam, put there by the US to inhibit Chinese influence in its own neighborhood. So it's much like Russia, surrounded by US bases. While neither Russia nor China have bases at US borders.

I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about people like Pompeo and Bolton, threatening war.

"inhibit Chinese influence in its own neighborhood" well, its enough for a crisis. Japan,ROC, Philippines,Vietnam have their rights of sovereignty too.

And behold, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia are all sovereign. Everyone gets their wish.

China's sin was to have dredged up some sea bottom mud and built it into a sand-castle military base. Until she did, no one owned that particular patch of mud. Meanwhile the US has displaced the inhabitants of Okinawa and Guam to build their own bases. I really don't see the problem.

Mud for a clear reason: sea denial.

its not question of capability of US military to win wars but absence of a long-term strategic vision of politicians. Democracy involves change of presidents every 2 mandates and Secretary of State is nominated by the President, the continuous replacement makes difficult the development of a coherent long-term strategy and many decisions are made to achieve immediate results for electoral reasons. The limit of presidential mandates is holy principle to avoid a sort of "presidential monarchy" but something must be done to mantain coherent posture on world challenges.

You are so right. Every time our administration changes, the first order of business is to undo all the work of the previous government. Our allies have learned not to depend on our word, as it is likely to be rescinded eight years later.

This came as no surprise to Iran. We've done this to them several times before.

This is not a problem of the US military, but of American politicians who cannot formulate a goal for the military.
Being in a hostile region is not a goal for the military.
Protecting opium poppy fields is not a military target.
Transporting opium from Afghanistan to Kosovo is not the goal for the military.
Incorrect use of military tools leads to incorrect results.

Correct. Lack of clearly defined mission aim and departure date = mission creep.