Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars

Much of the Cold War fear and turbulence that resonated throughout the late 20th century was the result of post-WW2 ideologies as well as reactions founded in those ideologies. One notable reaction to these ideologies was the US’ involvement in the Korean War beginning in 1950. Its involvement was the result of the post-WW2 fear of the spread of communism and its subsequent need to halt the North Korean invasion of South Korea. This was the first military action of the US during the Cold War and yet, although being a salient event for the US, it became overshadowed and forgotten. In The Bridges of Toko-Ri, James Mitchner details the struggles of Navy fighter pilots in the Korean War. As he cultivates the encounters of these young, unprepared men, he highlights the persisting idea of “why are we here” as well as the horror that nobody in America cares about the war. Mitchner’s insight into this transitionary era in American warfare reveals how the Korean War became eclipsed by both the unity of World War 2 and the hopelessness of Vietnam. Although it was overshadowed by WW2 and Vietnam and became widely known as the Forgotten War, the Korean War played a pivotal role in shaping US policies for the rest of the Cold War.

Historically, the United States has entered military conflict, direct and indirect, based on the desire to maintain its political ideals and or minimize the expansion of alternative governmental forces. The prevailing sentiment of American policy with regards to military occupation and direct conflicts focuses on the practical irradiation of communism. Military experts and academic scholars debate over the definition of war in America, blurring the lines under which policymakers identify conflict. Ultimately the political objectives, economic frugality and social climate shape the American “way of war”.

The invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.

The Best War Ever, written by Michael C. C. Adams, is a book focusing on the balanced history of the experience from America’s view during World War II. It neither glorifies nor vilifies the U.S. participation but discusses the real horrors of the war by using glorifying aspects that could have been deceptive or even misleading. World War II defined and transformed the rest of our lives. Americans viewed World War II as the “Good War” or “The Best War Ever”. After the end of the war, Americans had a positive outlook after overcoming the past years. German fascism and the Japanese were defeated but were also encouraged to resume roles of our world responsibility in our image of democracy. It is generally agreed that World War II was a necessary war.

Regarded as one of the most controversial and polarizing military conflicts in U.S. history, the Vietnam War has left a deep and lasting impact on American culture, politics, and foreign policy. From 1964 to the present day, the Vietnam War redefined the scope of U.S. influence both at home and abroad, and caused a fundamental shift in American society that dramatically changed the way in which Americans viewed their government and the role of the United States as a world power. For an entire generation of Americans, who watched as the horrors of the war in Vietnam unfold before the spotlight of the national media, the Vietnam War directly challenged the superiority of the American way and the infallibility of U.S military dominance. In truth, the U.S government, U.S. military, and the American people as a whole struggled to accept the lessons of America’s greatest military failure and the sobering reality of the war’s consequences. To this day, the legacy of this so-called “American War” continues to resonate throughout the fabric of American society as a cautionary tale of U.S foreign intervention and blind acceptance of open-ended conflict.

In the article, Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? the author, Dominic Tierney, asserts that the United States has entered an age of “unwinnable conflict”. Tierney argues that since the end of World War II excessive military power, an international shift from state-on-state war to internal conflict, the emergence of non-state actors and peace between states have contributed to The United States’ inability to win major conflicts. Tierney uses mistakes in strategy and tactical failures to support his argument.

During the 1950s through the present time, great debate has divided American society regarding the Vietnam War. The research paper examines whether or not the United States had achieved its foreign policy goal in regard to Vietnam. In order for one to understand why the Tet Offensive had a profound impact on United States’ doctrine, this particular key event must be put in the context of American policy and the ensuing conflict in Vietnam up to 1968. The paper will provide an overview of the Cold War policy of containment, the reasoning for America involving itself in Vietnam, and the impact of the Tet Offensive on both the United States and the Johnson administration.

Yet, in both of these false dichotomies , Mr. Tierney fails to consider the question: Has America stopped winning wars, or has the definition of what constitutes a strategic victory evolved into something beyond the “valor-studded splendor of American warfare”? This essay will challenge Mr. Tierney’s arguments by showing the social construction of post-World War II definitions of victory by

Within the context of the United States, wars, atrocities, and widespread violence has plagued our nation’s history. Although we go through periods of revolution and pride, a more critical and overarching perspective of American history reveals a common theme of war. Since the American Revolution of 1776, major wars like the Civil War and the Vietnam War have broadly changed the American landscape. In particular, the Vietnam War solidified widespread distrust in the American government because of the drastic disparities between political rhetoric and reality. The pervasive propaganda in the rhetoric of American politicians created an inaccurate portrayal of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, influencing the imaginations of the American public. In

“What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.” Said Robert E. Lee. Who actually wins in war? In a sense, war is the killing of our own brothers & sisters. The fact that war is used to resolve political issues is sickening. Our newest generations are being born into this world thinking that war is common and necessary depending on the circumstances when it’s not. It’s obvious what this means, it only means more war is to come

In the recent decades since the Vietnam conflict there have been debates over whether U.S. leaders and military personnel or the common U.S. people had a greater impact on the outcome of the conflict. At first glance it may seem like the common people played a greater role in the outcome of Vietnam because the large number of antiwar protests put pressure on the leaders to withdrawal troops. However, when the situation is further examined it becomes apparent that the U.S. leaders and military personnel’s lack of knowledge about the North and South Vietnamese people and their use of poor military tactics ultimately made the war unwinnable. The unwinnable state of the war was not influenced by the ant-war protests held by the common U.S. people,

For this paper, I am going to define strategy using Joint Pub 3.0’s definition: A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multi-national objectives. Using this definition of strategy, I’ll argue that Nightingale makes a valid claim when he states that the US is weak in formulating strategy by highlighting several aspects of strategic development where the US needs improvement. Nonetheless, let the record show that America’s success rate in conflicts in the last century is mixed, laying claim that the US may not be great at strategy development, however, it has done well enough to defeat some pretty ruthless villains ie., Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic, and Bin

Although Vietnam was able to withstand a thousand years of Chinese ruling, they suffered enormously during the Vietnam War. However, one has to question who won or lost the Vietnam War. This question has plagued many Americans and other people. Despite who won or lost the war and whether the Vietnam

In March 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion to Iraq, a reporter noted to then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that “Calling Iraq an insurgency or a guerilla war brings to mind Vietnam, which most people can agree was not a resounding success.” Rumsfeld replied, “The reporters are asking is it Vietnam yet? - hoping it is. And it isn’t. It’s a different time. It’s a different era. It’s a different place.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is correct in that there are many intricacies separating an analogous relationship between Afghanistan and Vietnam. Although it would be over simplification and gross negligence to say that military operations in Afghanistan is today’s version of the Vietnam war, there are similarities between both wars that are worthy

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”(Sun Tzu). This quote has bewildered me ever since I began to read Sun Tzu and to fully understand it, one has to understand the implications of winning wars. I once heard that only dead men see the end of war, loosely phrased from Plato, and I don’t know if I can agree. Arguably, America’s greatest export is war, and do we sure like to go door to door like regular ol’ boy scouts knocking to let us in. A country built on revolution and its foundation on indigenous graves, America knows war, and war is money. With that said, if Sun Tzu’s great strategy were to be followed, how would we, as Americans, perpetuate