Why does the US continue to lose wars?

I don't think that waiting until we are tired and then declaring, "I'm taking my ball and going home." is the proper tack.
We should declare the end point beforehand:
--- Decide and declare what is wrong
--- Decide and declare what we want accomplished
--- Charge the Flag with accomplishing the mission with minimum time, cost, and attrition
--- Charge the Flag with reporting Mission Accomplished
== then leave or provide a guarding residual

So, the future is bleak, and the US should really consider a non-interventionist policy in the future?

MAJ (Join to see) - Major; I think that taking a "non-interventionist" stance would be going a bit too far as that would be conceding the game.

However, how about doing a minor rule change and having the US government tie the amount of assistance it will give to any country to the degree of freedom, democracy, and human rights its citizens enjoy and the amount of honesty its government displays?

In other words "We will help you along the path to a modern and progressive society PROVIDED that you show that that is what you are trying to achieve. BUT if you want to run a corrupt, venal, murderous, dictatorship you aren't going to get a dime - oh yes, and we aren't going to trade with you either.".

The PR advantages of such a policy (if publicly announced and actually followed) would do one hell of a lot to restore the reputation of the United States of America amongst that portion of the world's population which can still be influenced to move into the 20th Century (and beyond).

From a moral perspective, we swear to support and defend the Constitution first and foremost over everything else. Should that not be our moral compass, how as a military sworn to support and defend the very instrument that gives Liberty and Freedoms, can we support those would not grant that to their own people. I do find that to be an odd juxtaposition, defend freedom, at the same time prop up a some one who doesn't support our way of life. Intervention can a lot of different meanings, can we teach people to farm better, build better roads, build a better infrastructure without supplying them F-16's or billions of dollars in defense aid. I am of the opinion that much of the middle east's problems could be fixed far easier if we could fix the unemployment so prevalent in the region. Bombing the hell out of people in turn only raises another generation of wanna be jihadists. Does that mean the US employing them, no. That doesn't work here, why would it work there? I agree with the Col Ted Mc comments.

We're good at winning battles in low intensity conflicts. We win conventional wars, but are not doctrinally prepared for the urban/low intensity/jihad fight. Everyone talks about the "strategic corporal" in such situations. I've yet to see ANYONE carry it out.

Unfortunately in the "Information Age" you can't hide what you do to Civilians like they once did and to Win on the World Stage we can't come across as Thugs, Cold Hearted Murderers.

William I am not saying we should project ourselves as cold hearted murderers, what I am saying is we are to concerned about collateral damage, for instance , there is a building with known enemy , across the street there is a mosque, we will not bomb that building holding the enemy for fear of damaging the mosque. we can't fire at the enemy till they fire first. it's crazy. And to confirm the topic, we can't win a war because as you put it the information age. It's ok for the enemy to commit atrocities against us , but we miss a building and hit a civilian we are monsters. we are to politically correct. and that don't win wars.

In a conventional war, sure. In reality, Iraq and Afghanistan sort of suggest otherwise.

Best to say that we are in a learning curve, time will tell what we have learned. Have you ever seen the movie What Have We Learned Charlie Brown?

Not sure I agree with your periodization of Iraq; limited to 2003, sure, we toppled Saddam. Placed in the context of 1991-2015, Iraq doesn't look so rosy (and the concept that we toppled Saddam is suspect, as so many senior Baath party leaders are now ISIS leaders).

And I don't agree with your generalization of war. WWII was a victory because the NAZIs and their allies were defeated. If the rebuilding of Germany and Japan was to be a factor then i wouldn't call it much of a success since it led to a divided Germany and the rise of Communism that led to more wars. The Iraq regime was defeated. That war effort was won. The new campaign as result of our occupation is a separate story. You can't combine the two; otherwise we lost a lot more wars with our failed rebuilding efforts and rise of terror groups and dictators.

Agreed. But we publish national strategies---why don't we implement them?

Just postulating here, but too broad based and not focused on true strategic goals, be them hard or soft. I also think, and am somewhat reluctant to state, but here goes. Political correctness has crippled us from being willing to call out our enemies.

On the other hand, our most significant enemy of the last 30 years has become more ambiguous thus leaving us formulating strategies that try to cover everything. Just my two cents.