Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars Essay

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

From the time when the first English colonies were established in North America until now, there has been some form of armed fighting force in place to protect the interests of the United States and its colonial progenitors. During the roughly four centuries in which this fighting force has existed, it has undergone numerous changes of varying degrees of significance. Technological advances have changed the nature of both defensive and offensive warfare, political advances have changed the nature of the relationship between the civilian population and its protectors, and geostrategic shifts have changed the role of the United States military with respect to the rest of the world. The most lasting and meaningful changes have occurred

Tierney immediately grabs the reader’s attention by appealing to emotion. He begins by providing a brief description of the last soldiers to die in the Korean War, Viet Nam, and Iraq. He then assures the reader that “an unknown soldier will have the same fate in Afghanistan.” Moreover, he quotes John Kerry in an attempt to show that Viet Nam was a mistake, implying the same for Iraq. Furthermore, the inability to resolve these conflicts earlier resulted in unnecessary loss of life. Tierney revisits this appeal to emotion in his conclusion “as the banner of ISIS rises above Ramadi and Palmyra.” Last, he plays on the

This period represented the model of what war “ought to look like.” According to Tierney, following 1945, the United States stopped winning major wars. For him, the United States did not win in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. However, the term win is somewhat elusive. In Korea, the outcome was inconclusive as the goal of liberating North Korea was not met. Yet, the United States did successfully defend South Korea from totalitarianism. Perhaps this should open the debate as to how winning is defined. The current war in Afghanistan suffers the same criticism in that, even after a decade of war, the terms of conflict were not accurately defined. Tierney’s view of winning is rather narrow. The challenge is to provide a more realistic assessment of victory which does not simply consider the defeat of the adversary, but examines the attainment of

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.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

Perhaps there 's no getting away from our awesome political gap, a perpetual conflict of armed forces, and any endeavors to change the guidelines of engagement are purposeless. Alternately perhaps the trivialization of governmental issues has achieved a final turning point, so that the vast majority consider it to be only one more preoccupation, a game, with legislators our paunch-bellied combatants and the individuals who try to focus just fans on the sidelines: We paint our confronts red or

Through separate publications, Geoffrey Parker and Victor Hanson describe principal foundations (Parker) and a prominent element (Hanson) that serve as the basis for their argument in defining a Western Way of War. However, both men fall short in clearly describing what is a true Western Way of War. Both the principal foundations by Parker and the prominent element by Hanson, while insightful, only delineate a single type of warfare that was used by the armies of Europe and the United States, however they fail to capitalize on the basis of their argument because neither man legitimately compares that type of warfare to any other method of fighting that was used, or is currently used, by other nations around the world. Hence, there is no

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

The United States lost Iraq once they left altogether too soon before it was a fully stable country. It had just been starting to have been looking better for the country but as soon as President Barrack Obama had declared the war in Iraq as over things had started going bad. Not only had the troops left but the all United States ambassadors and politicians had left so Iraq's new prime minister Nori-al Maliki was left all alone with no more help from the US so he was able to do whatever he wanted to do without being watched. Maliki started the hatred and war again by trying to wipe out the Sunni population and making Iraq a mostly Shia ruled country. Now the problems continue to rise as both Sunni and Shia forces fight for control of the

Marsella, A.J. (2011). The United States of America: “A Culture of War.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 714-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.09.007

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

One would think that going to war and (hopefully winning) would bring happiness and peace to a country, but after winning the losses are overwhelming. It is evident from the military history of the USA the involvement in war can pose many problems for a country’s stability. An economically stable country can be launched into depression over a few short years. However, with the possession of a weapon that

The United States of America holds a unique position in the world by being the most powerful nation. Our nation leads the global economy and dedicates more money to foreign aid than any other country. It has been seventy years since the last world war, yet the United States still maintains the largest and most powerful military on the planet. A position it has upheld since the end of WWII. Should the United States remain prepared for a large scale, global conflict? In this essay, I will detail the contentions surrounding the subject of the US maintaining such a large military.

Due to their desire to gain economic assets and spread their ideals, the United States has obtained a reputation of forcefully administering their beliefs and attempting to mediate relations to their preference in other nations. Even if these endeavors were reasonable in the late 20th century, financial and international developments in the world and in the U.S. have made them increasingly unfavorable to undertake in recent years i.e.- they have led to a gradual withdrawal of national allies and universal beginnings of anti-Americanism. It is written in the Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection that “The U.S’ military has been severely stretched by its commitment in Iraq” and that “The U.S’ reputation in the world has been tarnished”(Iraq Wars).