Are American warriors prohibited from winning wars?

Definitely yes!!! Like Vietnam and the 'hearts and minds BS' that he incidentally apologized for before this death. Too little, too late and the likes of our Vietnam and Vietnam-era Veterans of which I come from the latter.

Absolutely ..Just ask any Vietnam Veteran...the public turned against the war when Life Magazine's Front Page had the photos of causalities from one week in Nam.. Korean Veterans were frustrated because of the way their war was managed & soon forgotten.

Agreed. If our political leaders are unwilling to do whatever it takes to win a war they should not send our soldiers into harm's way in the first place. Viet Nam was lost in Washington DC rather than in the jungles of SE Asia, and Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering the same fates.

As long as politicians are able to exert complete and absolute control over the military and micro-manage every move it makes, I'd say, yes, we were and we are being prevented from winning wars. The difference between the military's decision-making abilities during WWII and every one since, including Korea, clearly demonstrates how the influence of politicians can negatively impact the military's ability to WIN THE GODDAMN THING!!! And I adamantly disagree that we won anything in Iraq or Ass-ghanistan!!!

The problem never seems to be winning the war - it's the constant moving of the goal posts.

Phase 1: Liberation of Iraq – 19 March – 1 May 2003 - won.

Phase 2: Transition of Iraq – 2 May 2003 to 28 June 2004 - won.

Phase 3: Iraqi Governance – 29 June 2004 to 15 December 2005 - won

Phase 4: National Resolution – 16 December 2005 to 9 January 2007 - won

Phase 5: Iraqi Surge – 10 January 2007 to 31 December 2008 - won

Phase 6: Iraqi Sovereignty – 1 January 2009 to 31 August 2010 - won

Phase 7: New Dawn – 1 September 2010 to 31 December 2011 - won

Phase 6 is a big one - that's where Iraq gets the keys to their country. Why is it our fault they wrapped it around a tree as soon as we left?

This is why our next President should be a veteran not another political or bussiness world puppet. Back during WWi and WWII, most of our elected officials were vets. Today, most don't understand the concept of fighting to win in combat!

As long as war and the military are used a political weapon we will never be able to achieve out military goals in a conflict. You can see it very clearly in the wars that have been fought post WWII. Korea - Draw; Cuba - disaster; Vietnam - withdraw; Dominican Republic - win but flimsy reason for invasion; Lebanon - withdraw; Grenada - success; Panama - success; Gulf War - Success, but only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait with assistance of multinational force; Somalia - withdraw; Haiti - military success political failure; Bosnia - Air war, prolonged "peace keeping" mission, NATO action; Kosovo Again ground troops used as peace keepers NATO action; Afghanistan - withdraw no clear victory; Iraq - Withdraw no clear victory. If you look at the threat of ISIS there is no real strategy when this threat could be eliminated through the use of our military but not being used.

I'm rusty on war theories but I believe it was Clausewitz who stated that the government is supposed to ensure the war is just, the people seeing a just war will give their citizens to the army and the military will fight the war. We do not allow to fight wars without political interference. We will not win another unless the military can fight to win.

Sir-While I agree with the general view that mismanagement and "political" policies limited our efforts...I would respectfully add that there were far greater questions that should've been asked, and never were. Who exactly was the "enemy"; Al Queda, the HIG, corrupt elements of the Afghan/Iraqi government, farmers who had been told we were there to help the ANA seize their land, or all of the above? We ignored centuries of cultural complexity and attached a very ambiguous aim of "nation building" to a mission that at the ground level...looked a lot more like, "We'll be done when these troglodytes can write a five paragraph Op-Order and stop rolling the general populace for cash...Oh, and stop making the women wear burquas." By contrast, the wars we did win in the past were against clearly installed regimes...the goal was to crush their ability to fight a sustained war and force surrender of their national command authority. How do you define victory in a nation where the presiding government and local national forces are already your "allies"? Is it when no when shoots at you anymore, when those officials stop negotiating behind your back with the elusive "insurgency"?

Winning a War on Terrorism implies that at some point, you end terrorism...that in and of itself sounds improbable.

Many of the Afghans I worked with thought we would (and wanted us to) stay forever...their soldiers liked the "prestige" of being trained by Americans...their tribal elders were making piles of cash of "contracting" (loosely translated as building a concrete bath house for $5k, but demanding the Americans supply all the material/tools). We had a running joke about the local elders calling in rocket attacks that "just missed" the base, so we'd have them build more HESCO barriers. Culturally, they couldn't understand why so many of us were there, instead of being at home supporting our three wives, in-laws, parents and cousins. One elder even offered to adopt me...true story.

In Afghanistan, We could've hit the ground with full-effect, hunted down and killed anyone with a weapon-The Soviets tried that and failed. We could've abandoned any attempt at fostering "good will", and supported a total take-over by our chosen regime du jour-and dealt with it when they decided to invade Pakistan. The casualties and atrocities accompanying either would've be unpalatable to an American public naive enough to believe there was an end-state where these people were no longer a threat.

Don't misunderstand me Sir...I feel the "PC" crowd has been to blame for many a good Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman's blood. Strong and clear leadership may have deemed it more appropriate to hit Al Queda "off the books", or bomb the Khowst valley to dust immediately post 9-11 and move on. Ultimately, in my opinion, one doesn't need to look further than the money made from contracts supplying, supporting and maintaining the "long war" (I'm thinking of the Eastern Europeans making $70k/year testing soil connectivity for six months before furlough in Thailand) to understand why things were done as they were done.

Now, there's a no-joke, no holds barred evil at work , and we'll (or our sons will ) have to face them sooner than we think. Hopefully, when we get around to that (officially), those in command won't be making decisions involving deals made on Martha's Vineyard, or worrying too terribly about the "hearts and minds"...other than as targets.

The problem is the definition of war. Generally speaking "War is Diplomacy Through Military Force." Unfortunately, what happens when you don't have a diplomatic relationship with the organization which you are at war with? It changes the goals. It changes everything.

When you are dealing with a Nation, the concept is super simple. That's why we were successful in the 1st Gulf War, and even in the first phases of OIF. But counter-insurgency... We're getting into "occupation strategy" not "exit strategy" level games.

Edit: spelling