Does the US Get Lost in Endless Wars?

[rangerrebew]

Does the US Get Lost in Endless Wars?
Peter Huessy - Warrior Senior Nuclear Weapons Analyst · February 10, 2025

By Peter Huessy, Warrior Nuclear Weapons Analyst


Numerous critics of United States security policy have asked why the country engages in what have become known as endless wars, and that end in what can only be described as defeat for the United States. To many Americans, this is incongruous. Having been repeatedly reminded the US was supposedly the world’s sole superpower, it is bewildering that over two decades the United States could not over the long term defeat the Afghan Taliban even having with great skill and speed, initially eliminated the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in 2001.
 
Victor Davis Hanson has one explanation. The United States in Korea and in Vietnam assumed that such conventional conflicts could easily become nuclear if pursued too vigorously by the United States. So, the United States repeatedly pulled its punches and settled for less than victory. This resulted in the case of Vietnam and Afghanistan victory for our enemies and the status quo ante in Korea.

A retired senior US military officer writes that he thinks there is strong historical support for Hanson’s analysis. He writes however about a companion concern: “We could at least try to think through how to end a crisis or conflict leaving US security better off than when the conflict started.” He explains further: “Even when the US actually seem to settle for the status quo ante, we often never actually achieve such an objective, as we seem to always end up leaving the security of the United States a little worse off as opposed to ending up better than when such a conflict started.”

https://warriormaven.com/global-security/does-the-us-get-lost-in-endless-wars

[rangerrebew]

I'm 77 and basically can't remember a time when our troops weren't getting killed in someone else's war.

[Smokin Joe]

My dad fought in Korea, and that is still a cease fire, not a resolution.

[DefiantMassRINO]

It varies by region.

The US got involved in Korea because it was the only nation capable of backfilling the power vaccum caused by the defeat of Japan.

The US got involved in Vietnam because it was the only nation capable of backfilling the power vaccum caused by a collapsing French Empire.

The US got involved in the Middle East to backfill a power vaccum caused by a collapsing British Empire.

When the balance of power changed as a result of World War II, the only nations left standing to fill power vaccums were the Soviet Union, the United Sates, and the emerging Chinese People's Republic.

When empires fall, their neighbors fight over the pieces.

The best way for America to avoid involvement in further forever wars is to have strong allies to blunt the aggressor tendencies of other forces in the region.

It makes strategic sense for the US to remain engaged in East Asia to check the imperial ambitions of the People's Republic of China and in Europe to check the imperial ambitions of Putin.

The Middle East is a different story.  The Middle East is a region of powers competing amongst themselves to establish dominance or hegemony over the region - Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia / United Arab Emirates.  Also China and India will be drawn in as they develop dependencies upon Persian Gulf oil.

The biggest risk in the Middle East is nuclear proliferation.  The 2003 American invasion of Iraq and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrated or confirmed that nations without nukes are susceptible to foreign invasion.  Iran is seeking nukes to deter the US (and maybe Russia).  Saudi Arabia will seek nukes to deter Iran.  Israel already has nukes.  Turkey may seek nukes if it feels threatened by Russia, Iran, and possibly Saudia Arabia.  Europe, and possibly NATO, may be drawn in to protect Freedom of Navaigation through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

American boots on the ground is a big mistake in the region.  Also, as the British abandon Diego Garcia to the People's Republic of China, it would be advantageous of the United States Navy to acquire the Islands of Socotra as a forward operating base.   That would allow US and allied navies to protect Freedom of Navigation in the region without having to put boots on the ground on the Arabian Peninsula.