Why does the US continue to lose wars?

"Lose" is a relative term. We've surrendered or succumbed to nobody. The last time we may have been "beaten back" was in Vietnam [politically]. We clearly won Desert Storm, but didn't finish the job the first time.

Overall, my best answer to your actual question is: because we aren't fighting enemies anymore. We are fighting ideals, imaginary problems and our own POLITICS and special interests. You can't beat ideals. And when decisions are being made from a desk in Washington and being based on special interests and profits...everyone loses.

Speak for yourself.
No war was ever lost on my watch. We just lacked the will to secure that victory, to win the peace. We didn't lose. We left.

Personally, I don't believe that we lose because we are too big. I believe that we lose because our politicians and the general public aren't as invested in our winning. So WW1 and WW2, the country was focused on the war effort. Those that were not fighting the war were supporting the war effort in some form or fashion. That is just not the case anymore. If someone isn't personally involved, they really don't care.

A few thoughts / reasons why the US is 0-5 (not 1-4) since the end of WWII:
- Deviation from Constitutional standards. The US has not declared war since 8 DEC 1941 for a variety of reasons. The second order impact if this deviation is that our political leaders have failed to convince and muster the full support of the American people since that time.
- Tacticians vs Strategists. The US military produces tacticians who win battles but very few strategists who win wars.
- War on the Cheap. See first bullet. Another 2nd order effect of deviate from the Constitutional standard is that American politicians try to conduct war on the cheap. As any car or home buyer knows, you get what you pay for.
- Short term vs long term. Different ways to state this but our political system emphasizes the short term over the long term. Generational and multi year wars are difficult for democracies to sustain.
- Definition of "win". What is the definition of "win". I define it as achieving the political goals of the war and setting conditions for an enduring peace. That is why I do not define DS/DS as a win. The US achieved the political goal of getting Saddam out of Kuwait but after that we contained him for 12 years (at great expense) and then invaded again in 2003.
- I disagree that the US loses wares because it is so powerful. The US has lost wars since 1945 for the reasons noted above which have nothing to do with power.

Spineless politicians who refuse to wage total war

Liberalism.

MAJ (Join to see) I would phrase it we haven't won any "wars" since WWII but that does not mean we lost either. Political ends where no one truly "wins" has been the order of the day since Korea.

We, as a country, have not had the same "all in" mentality of WWI and WWII. Could we have "won" every war? Yes. But did we, as a nation, have the will to do so? I would argue not.

Awesome topic!

I think the article is aptly titled "Why has America Stopped winning wars?" but I have to agree with most everyone else, we haven't lost either. There are myriad reasons why we aren't winning and I won't take the cop out and blame it on the politicians, I'll look introspectively.

First, the nature of the wars we fight has changed but we haven't truly adapted to that. The shadow of WWII still looms large in the minds of military strategists and those within the military-industrial complex. We want to mobilize the nation to win the big war, but it hasn't been that way, and likely won't be again anytime soon. Russia may be invading Ukraine but unless they go after Germany (doubtful) then we aren't, and can't really, do anything militarily to stop them. China may be a big threat in a land war but unless they go through North Korea they don't have the lift capabilities to project power yet. So instead of focusing on stability operations, peace-keeping operations, and general global security from threats (i.e. terrorism) we have been yearning to fight some non-existent superpower.

Which brings me to my second point. Because we haven't adapted to the nature of warfare our units and training reflect a very confused outlook and foreign policy. The Army has "Modular" Brigade Combat Teams but they are way off the mark. Modular means to be able to assemble different components or rapidly change components for a missions set, the Army has taken it as a one-size fits all. Hence the reason why every single BCT has the same structure and same mission instead of using each type of force as it should. Airborne units are meant to be shock troops, and even in prolonged conflicts can be used as such. Armored units are meant to punch holes in enemy defenses and exploit breakouts, not patrol downtown areas. The Strykers have proved very versatile but I still think we could do more. So, as far as units are concerned they should be structured and oriented to what they are suited for and have the ability to be modular, that is, change their MTOE as needed to complete the mission.

That brings up training. Because each unit is supposedly the same, and because we aren't sure which war we want to fight, we fail to properly train for the missions at hand. The more I have read and studied our fights I often wonder if anyone has picked up an infantry field manual in the past 15 years. We can't even do the basics of take and hold territory anymore. I know the USMC does a good job of getting Marines to training, for the most part, but in the Army at least "schools" are filled with people trying to get promoted, not mission essential personnel. Also, this lack of training, all the way up, causes us to become overly reliant on overwhelming force as a means for victory. It is mentioned countless times throughout this post that the reason we lose, or don't win, is because we don't conduct total war. With the exception of Vietnam, and possibly Korea, most of our conflicts haven't been of that nature. But because that is all we can think of we send way more troops than are needed and keep them around for too long to be targets. Anyway, that portion of the conversation could be a book in it's own right.

Finally, we didn't heed Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex as you said. We are overly focused on the number of tanks, ships, weapons, etc. instead of their capabilities. So what if we have fewer ships than before WWII, one modern DESRON could probably annihilate an entire fleet of WWII ships. In the same vein, we are worried about troop strength dropping below pre-WWII numbers, but each soldier today is better armed, trained, and protected than his predecessors. One soldier with a javelin and a well-supplied fighting position could hold off an armored thrust single-handedly, not likely in WWII. The reason they speak of these things is because the MIC wants to keep it's share of the pie as large as possible. If troop numbers drop we need less weapons and vehicles to remain effective. The military is hardly allowing itself a necessary evil, creative destruction, to take place. Creative destruction is the advances in technology and thinking that create positive change and the military is very adverse to change.

I think that about sums it up, this is a topic I often think about. Hope at least one person takes the time to read this whole thing.

We didn't go to conquer these countries. We went to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.(mission complete)!! Note sure what the mission was in Iraqi. That's something we'd have to ask former president bush. Maybe we wasn't suppose to be over there. But we did take Saddam Hussein out of power. He was the only weapon weapon of mass destruction that we found in the country.(LOL) mission complete. Now it comes a time when the people have to stand up for theirselves. Like battered spouse you can't help them until they want your help. When we was there they couldn't wait for us to leave. We can't bailout everyone. We been to take care of home now

I don't see Iraq or Afghanistan as lost. We left because there was government that we installed, with an army that we trained on the ground. Iraq lost some ground but the war isn't over yet (it would be over if we had left troops there and we wouldn't have this problem). Afghanistan is still in control with sporadic fighting but their government is still in place and functioning as well as can be expected. We need a military leader in the White House.