The US has been defeated in 3 consecutive guerilla wars. Yet our tactics were last changed in World War 2.
I missed this comment before, and while I am guessing one of the three is Vietnam, I am not sure what the others are. But that being said, I feel like there is a lot of misinformation about the wars the US has fought since WWII, especially when people say America lost. I know I am going so off topic here and I am sorry.
Korean War: The Korean War is a much overlooked, and fascinating war. I do not know why it doesn't get looked at more. I am guessing by now, that it was just too long ago. If there is any veteran of any war I could share my gratitude for service for, it's Korean War veterans. If you haven't read up on the war at all, I highly recommend This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenback (
https://www.amazon.com/This-Kind-War-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/1574883348/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523542728&sr=1-1&keywords=This+Kind+of+war&dpID=51EkgWhar7L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch), which was written not too long after the war and does an amazing job detailing the events of small units to the politics at the time. You get just about everything in one book.
The interesting thing about that war was how unprepared the US was for fighting it, how it got itself into a fight without a overall strategic plan, and then wanting out of it, asking young US soldiers "don't win too much, we don't want to escalate, but definitely do not lose" had to have been a terrible thing to hear when you had buddies dying. It is the start of limited engagements where the US tries to win without full commitment, yet ends up in a costly fight that costs more in the long run.
But to say the US lost that war is not correct. The goal of the US was to defend South Korea and remove the North Koreans from the south, which it did. After that, the US wanted to end things for good, and MacAuthur's arrogance caused the battles to be lost in the north. The Chinese initially just didn't want the US in the north, but after tasting victory, wanted to push the US out of Korea all together. They failed, and the war settled into a stalemate at the 38th because neither side wanted to commit more. So you could argue it was a tie, but the US military did want it was originally sent in to do.
Also, the US not being prepared also gave rise to the military industrial machine. If you want to know why we are where we are today, you'll see from reading this book.
Vietnam War: Vietnam is far more well known, and probably even less understood. While the government in the South were a bunch of a-holes, and probably shouldn't have even been defended, the US went in to prevent communist North Vietnam from taking over the south. Initially the war was more of an insurgent one, with the US battling the Viet Cong in the South. However, that all changed after the Tet Offensive, while a shocking surprise attack on US forces around the country, it pretty much wiped out the Viet Cong and from that point the US was fighting North Vietnam regular forces. However, Walter Cronkite, hiding in an alley having no idea what was happening around the city or the rest of the country, told the US public that the war was lost. Political pressure mounted and it was the beginning of the end. But the US military was forced to fight one-hand behind the back. Like Korea, it had to be difficult for US service members to know exactly where Ho Chi Min's troops, supply bases, and so on were in the North, and not be able to do anything about them, while their buddies were being killed. Invading the north would have been messy, but probably would have ended the war pretty quickly. And whenever the US got serious about bombing the north, it brought the North to the negotiating table.
But the goal of the US being there: preventing the North from taking the South, was still met, and the North didn't take over the South until after US forces had long left the country. That's not on the US, that's on the South Vietnamese. Political loss, sure. But military one? I can't agree with that. The US military did what it was asked to do.
Desert Storm/Desert Shield: This is pretty easy, pretty much a straight up conventional war that devastated the 4th largest military at the time. However, like in previous wars, there was no political will to remove Saddam. Yes, there were arabs's who didn't want to see that happen, but had Saddam been removed in 1991, there would have been no 2003. In 1991 we had a massive, overwhelming military and allies on the ground to complete such a task too. Military victory yes, but I am not sure a politically strategic one.
Somalia: I mention this because while not a real war, I hear a lot that the US Special Forces were 'defeated' by the Somalian militia, which tell me each time someone says that, they have no idea what happened. The event in question is related to the capture of a couple of strongman Mohamed Farrah Aidid's aids. Unfortunately for the US Special Forces at the time, the political hacks in Washington didn't want to give requested equipment to the forces in country for fear of 'how it might make the humanitarian mission look'. If there is anyone who I would like to see strung up from poles in the city streets, its a-holes like them (do you see a trend here?)
But the mission of Delta and the Rangers was to go in, capture these guys, and return them to the airport. They did all of that. And that is a successful mission. For some reason people point to the casualties they took, and things like Black Hawks being shot down as reasons why the US lost, and I just can't see how that is. Did the US get into a hard battle that they were not prepared to fight? Yes. They practically took on a city. But they completed their mission. This would be like arguing that the US lost WWII because they lost a bunch of tanks and airplanes.
But US politics back then had a hard time with the US taking casualties, and Clinton decided to end the US presence in Somalia, which was a pretty big mistake. It basically taught the world that you could beat the US by causing a few casualties and they would go home. Things are very, very different today.
If you want to know more about that battle, and there is a lot more to it than what was shown in the movie, I recommend Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Hawk-Down-Story-Modern/dp/080214473X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523542625&sr=8-1&keywords=Black+hawk+Down+Mark+BowdenAfghanistan: If you want to see an example of the powers that be being completely ignorant of the ways of a country they are invading, look no further than Afghanistan. Relying on few Special Forces and hoping that bribing tribal leaders into doing the rest is what caused this to drag on for as long as it has. That war should have been wrapped up in 2003, but instead we diverted all of our resources to Iraq before the job was done. I know there was a greater Neo-Con plan for the region and it was naive and ignorant at the same time. The problem with Afghanistan is that the US has never had enough troops in country to make a difference. Especially early on, when it was the most important. Afghanistan is a tough place to fight, with a lot of places to hide, but with full US commitment, it could be done. But currently the US has 15,000 troops in the country and some how wonders how the Taliban are still around.
Make no mistake, in a straight up fight the US has overwhelming firepower and will win every fight. The US just doesn't seem interested in committing to that.
This is a straight up political failure.
Iraq 2003: This is going to piss some people off by saying this, but I honestly believe removing a dictator from power who gases his own people was a noble thing. Imagine if the world was united in doing that all of the time. I don't think for a second that Saddam had any chemical weapons, and didn't care the US was lying about it. I knew they had to lie about it, because the idea of overthrowing another leader is taboo. But Saddam was thumbing his nose at us, the UN, torturing his people, and so on. he deserved to get wacked.
However, I think we can all agree that almost right from the beginning, this was a disaster waiting to happen.
First, Bush wanting a 'cheap' war. What does that really mean? Not giving the US military all that it needs. Second, like Afghanistan, not understanding the people and culture. And third, Paul Brenner firing all the cops and military. I remember closing my eyes when I heard this at the time and thinking 'this has to be a dream'. Its no wonder that fool is sitting around painting pictures these days. It must be therapy. But regardless of all the mistakes the US made, the Iraqis have to accept a lot of the blame themselves. The Germans didnt start fighting each other after WWII, and neither did the Japanese. Everyone went about rebuilding the next society.
But the one thing I did realize that makes a difference between Germany and Japan versus Iraq: Germany and Japan were beaten into submission, while Iraq was not. Insurgents in Iraq were never really beaten down once the occupation started. Kind of hard to do, I understand that, but that's why things dragged on.
After Brenner eliminated the police and army, the US just didn't have enough troops to put on every street corner, nor could they ever. We just dont have WWII numbers anymore.
When the US did get serious, like in Fallujah or Ramadi, insurgent casualty rates greatly exceeded US by like 10-1.
Hard to say how history will look back at Iraq. If it turns into a peaceful, functional country, maybe historians will say it was worth it, I don't know. The price was high and could have been for far less though. The US military did the best it could despite the direction by a group of clowns. And the scary thought is what the Neo-Cons thought they could do in the middle east. Iraq may have saved Iran. Had Iraq not been the mess it was, the US could have very well turned East next.
There are other events, like Grenada, Panama, but I rarely hear about those. Those were small in scale but operational successes too.
In everything I have learned, the only way to win a war with a definitive conclusion is for it to be all out, well supported, with clear objectives. The failure of any of that turns into dragged out affairs - the very things politicians are trying to avoid. They just don't seem to get it. In the end, war is an extension of politics, so you could argue a political defeat is also a military one, but knowing what I know, I can't fault the US serviceman for the crap Washington orders them to do. In every war the US has fought, our enemy casualty rates are sickening even if/when ours seem high. We rarely lose actually battles, yet somehow lose control of the war. Its just there hasn't been a case since WWII when we really said to our military, "we are fully committed, giving everything you need, and are not stopping will these conditions are met" and that is why things have ended they way they have.