Why Does the West Seem Incapable of Winning Wars Anymore? – Part 4

Wars are no longer fought to achieve victory but to achieve often nebulous goals short of the actual defeat of the enemy and often were unrelated or even contrary to national strategic interests.

This one is a personal bug-bear of mine.  It has been common in the post-World War II world for Western nations in particular to set nebulous and generally unattainable war goals.  The submission of an enemy state is often not an objective and when it is even when achieved international pressure limits making a total victory truly stick.  This is not helped by unrealistic expectations on the part of the public that military victory can be achieved quickly and with little sacrifice of blood and treasure.

Nebulous goals have been such lofty sounding things as “make the world safe for democracy” (Cold War, Vietnam), “humanitarian assistance” (Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia), the “war on drugs” (Afghanistan, Latin America), and my personal favorite “fighting terror” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Philippines).  In actuality none of the above reasons ever admit of an announcement of success.  To be sure the US and other nations engaged in these kind of operations prior to World War II, I am thinking in particular here of the wars against the Barbary Coast, Britain stopping the Slave Trade in the mid-19th Century, The Dominican intervention of the 1920’s and similar operations.  However, even these operations had a concrete end-state in mind, were not considered endless tasks, and were prosecuted with a singleness of purpose that allowed for victory to be achieved and/or the mission to be accomplished.

Whether wars and conflicts are related to national strategic interests is perhaps another subject altogether.  The main reasons this is so is because the definition of strategic interests, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Before this debate or discussion can even begin what we mean by strategic interests must be defined and that definition agreed on.  I favor a narrow definition of strategic interests because I believe that too broad a definition fosters strategic overreach and dissipation of force.  Since I am the one writing this my definition of strategic interests is what counts for me and I hope that it makes sense to those of your reading this.  I define national strategic interests as: events or trends in the geostrategic sphere in which a resolution unfavorable to the nation directly impacts the survival prospects of that nation or its citizens.  That being said I will use some events from the past several decades to illustrate events that I think were and were not strategic interests of the United States.

Iran Hostage Crisis – yes – American Citizens were at risk

Invasion of Grenada – yes – American Citizens were at risk

Honduran Intervention – Maybe – Perhaps American strategic interests were at stake because of The Contras but like Panama I view this as a pure demonstration of American power

Invasion of Panama – No – It was an assertion of American prerogative but no strategic interests were at stake except perhaps control of the Panama Canal

Central American Narcowars – No – although the argument could be made that stopping the illegal trade is a vital interest of the US

Gulf War I – Yes – Ensuring the free trade in oil is a strategic interest of the US regardless of what the Left has to say

Somali Intervention – No, this was purely humanitarian intervention and its success or failure affected the security of the USA only peripherally at best

Bosnia/IFOR – No, this was a more purely European issue but one that the US stepped into in the face of European failure to effectively address the crisis.

Kosovo/KFOR – No, for the same reason as the IFOR mission

Afghanistan/OEF – This one I am on the fence on.  I th8ink the initial mission to destroy and/or drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban from power was but the subsequent nation building was/is not.

Iraq II/OIF – No, the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation is the clearest example of strategic distraction I can think of since attempted invasion of Turkey by the Allies in 1915.

Somali Littoral War/Anti-piracy – Yes, ensuring Free trade is eminently a strategic interest of a maritime nation like the US

Libyan Intervention – No, it is arguable if this was even a European interest.

ISIS Intervention – Not sure but my tendency is to say no.  Based on results America’s involvement is more to be able to say we did something than to actually achieve lasting results.

What is clear is that calculations of political necessity play a larger role in the use of force by America than do rational calculations of strategic interests.  Based on history I would even argue that 19th century politicians had a more pragmatic grasp of the utility of force and what it could and could not achieve than do the world leaders of today who have allowed national interests to become subservient to supposed international norms of behavior that are often inimical to national interest and at best neutral to achieving national goals.