Why has the United States not won a major war since 1945?

Why has the United States not won a major war since 1945?

Mohan R. Limaye

Professor Emeritus

Boise State University

Boise, ID

A few weeks ago (early in May 2014), I posed the above question to my friends and relatives soliciting their answers.

I tend to concur more with responses E, H and L than with the others.

Here is a compilation of all the responses I have received so far:

A. If I were to receive a paper for review based on this premise, I would reject it immediately on the grounds that the underlying assumption is fundamentally flawed: The US did not win the second world war. Both the first and second world wars were won by the allies, not by the United States. This in turn suggests a counter premise that the United States has not won any war since the Civil War against the Confederate States.

This leads me to respond to the spirit of your question with one potential answer: The United States was on the winning side in military activities in the first half of the 20th century as it teamed up with other contemporary (major) military powers.

Remark: have the partners of the US in the military engagements since 1945 had the same strength as the allies in the first / second world war? Might be a good exercise for a military historian. This leads to a further idea: will the US only ever win if it is on the same side as Russia...?

B. First, drawing from my early pacifist roots, I might suggest that a war is never "won" outright. I think good arguments could be raised that the Civil War, WWI, and WWII ended merely with one combatant accepting the surrender of others. But the damage to the U.S. society in each case was profound.

Second, the "wars" (or maybe "conflicts") since 1945 were not fought to be won outright. If they were fought without reservations, modern weapons would have ended the conflicts very quickly. They were fought for position in the global political environment.

C. One thing that comes to mind is: All wars after WW-II were most unpopular among the US populace.

D. We, the US, has fought its "wars" or limited conflicts since Korea without engaging its full force for fear of extreme retaliation.  No big bombs since WWII.  The fear was that China would come to the aid of Korea and Vietnam more so than it already did in both conflicts.  In the mideast both Irag wars and in Afghanistan, the U.S. went in with force, but the insurgents --Taliban- hide out like the Vietcong did in Vietnam and it is impossible to tell the enemy from the friendly troops.  The U.S. pulled out of all these conflicts without destroying the enemy and bringing them to their knees.  The enemy was / is like Medusa and killing one seems to spout a dozen more.   Which tells us that the  U.S. has not won the hearts and minds of  the land.  The natives do not see an outcome better with  the U.S. than with the home troops.  Another reason is that the3 conflicts have been entered into by the U.S. without a clear consensus from the U.S. citizens for  funding the war, for providing solders, and for  sacrificing to win the conflict at all costs.  In short, there is no superordinate goal to rally the country around.  Truman kept McArthur out of North Korea and didn't want a conflict with China.  Johnson couldn't figure out why we were in Vietnam.  Bush fabricated stories about the necessity of  going into Irag.  The U.S. won in Afghanistan with the killing of Bin Ladan, but that produced dozens of successors.

E. I would say that war is a complex exercise, made even more complex by guerrilla warfare tactics as employed in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  It's hard to defeat an opponent with the willpower to endure destruction and casualties in the defense of one's home.

F. Here are a few more thoughts:

1. The US successfully carried out the Bosnia mission. This was a small bore (Boer?) war but the region was in the Russian orbit and the US did not back down. There were also a few 'police actions' in the immediate vicinity of the US.

2. The main reason why no large scale wars like the WW II happen is because of  the possession of nuclear arms by major powers. It is ironic that the most feared weapon  has become a deterrent of big wars. The WW II was the main reason why nuclear research got the funding, yet the same 'hot' weapon produced the 'cold' war! One more example of the cooling effect of these weapons is seen in the India-Pakistan relations.

3. I think that the existence of the UN also plays a big part. Bush had to go (and lie) to the General Assembly to go into Iraq. There are frequent cries of 'bomb, bomb Iran' from the hawkish politicians in the US but no administration has dared to do this for fear of global repercussions and condemnation.  

4. Another paradox that someone mentions is how the arms industry helps to tamp down larger conflicts. Clearly, the industry produces arms not for actual warfare but for making money by selling arms to both of the combatants (so that there is no war)! 

G. It is strictly not true that the US hasn't won any wars since '45, but ...

1. There have been no nation-threatening wars (for the US, at least).
2. The definition of what is a war has changed, has become fuzzy.
3. The nature of war has changed.
4. People are far more informed and engage intensely with their govts. The public's appetite for war has waned, in spite of the Govt having Hollywood and the Mainstream Media mostly on its side.
5. The smallest of adversaries is now well armed with devastating weapons and is able to prosecute asymmetrical warfare effectively.
6. War can be, and is, waged in a variety of different ways, some of which are far more effective that the traditional confrontational methods. Economic, electronic and informational warfare are in vogue.
7. Nations and peoples are far more interconnected and interdependent, thus potential wars are often 'headed off at the pass'.
8. Many, long-term, globally-dispersed, low-intensity conflicts, along with constantly stoking insecurity is far more profitable for the arms industry than a few, massive, devastating wars. Let's face it--today's wars are dictated by the arms industry, not by governments or peoples.

H. If I have to give only ONE reason, I’d say that the spirit of nationalism (newly acquired and – ironically – learned from Western nations like us) in the recently independent countries has made it difficult for the U. S. to win outright any wars it fought there since 1945, for instance, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.  In Grenada, we did win.  However, no young Americans, my compatriots, even remember Grenada, let alone find it on the map.  No honest American can claim we won in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A fiery emotion like patriotism is hard to beat.

I. That the US did not win is false.  The US "won" in Iraq-1, Iraq-2 (killed the head), Afghanistan-1, Granada.  The only one they "lost" was Vietnam.

What quantitative measure(s) to use for "win" or "loss" is debatable, but counting the ratio of net devastation (to lives, property, etc) to the two sides, the US has never lost a war so far (except its civil war) - even Vietnam was devastated far more than the US.

J. How about the big win - the cold war?

K. The US over the last 60 years or so has lost its moorings, its sense of purpose and cohesion.  Too much disharmony, too much “me-ness”, and too divergent viewpoints have made any serious war-undertaking impossible.  That was not the case when we launched the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, WWI and WWII.

L. Some of your American friends, Mohan-Rao, who may not know Indian history, will find this parallel from our history rather interesting and instructive.  A mighty Mughal/Moslem emperor (whose empire then stretched from today’s Afghanistan to South-Central India) descended from Northern India into Western India around the latter decades of the 17^th century to crush a newly founded Maratha kingdom (a rebellious act in the eyes of the emperor).  He had huge resources at his command – soldiers, weapons and other materials, many times what the Marathas could muster.  Aurangzeb, the emperor, stayed and fought in the Deccan/South-West India for over 25 years.  Finally, he died there; his son -- exhausted and discouraged – gave up the campaign and left for the North.

This tells us why the US has not won any wars since 1945.

M. This article may be of relevance:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/28/the_evolution_of_territorial_conflict_a_new_paper_argues_that_there_s_a.html

Generally speaking, when opponents enter into conflicts—whether birds fighting over a nesting site or states going to war over a border dispute—the actor that previously occupied the territory has an advantage. 

“If somebody’s a resident, they seem to fight harder. They’re much more apt to be aggressive,” Duffy-Toft says. “As residents, they know the feel of it and the smell and where to find food, but if they come to the conclusion that they don’t have the capacity to defend that territory, they will abandon it.”