[greggman3]

It seems probably maybe you would actually agree with the OP. They would say, "given no interference from politicians the US Military would win" and you might say "yes but politicians always interfere, there's no such thing as 'no interference'"

Any of the situations you highlighted all have restrictions set by politicians, not military. For example full military might hasn't been released in Afghanistan. The politicians restrict what the military is allowed to do there. I'm not saying that's good or bad. In my un-informed opinion we shouldn't be there. But you can't claim it's the military losing there when the military is not allowed to actually use all its power and resources.

[jabl]

Wars aren't fought by militaries who want to demonstrate the latest military toys (one hopes, at least), but to achieve policy objectives. So of course the politicians decide what the military is allowed to do. Unless we're talking about a military dictatorship, though in that case it's maybe more accurate to say that the military high command has taken over the policy functions of the state rather than the military existing in some magic policy-free environment.

Or to quote von Clausewitz: "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."

[notahacker]

The politics define what 'victory' is though.

I mean, politics defined the objective for Vietnam as limiting the spread of communism and proscribed the only way in which the US could certainly have achieved that objective and 'won' the war militarily (nuke the entire population). So yes, it defined the terms of their failure, but I'm not sure one can meaningfully claim victory without politics anyway. Politics also defines the temporary grounds on which the US can be said to have enjoyed temporary and limited success (enabling a separate South Vietnam to persist whilst they were present, considering South Vietnamese losses tolerable in context)

But the military element is clearly a large part of that political failure. The US military didn't feel they could win the war on the terms they'd been given without calling up 2 million conscripts, and couldn't eliminate the Viet Cong quickly enough for the public to tolerate this, with military setbacks like the Tet Offensive strongly influencing the political shifts.

[renewiltord]

Nah, America was losing Vietnam. It couldn't be won the way it was fought. That country is no slouch. Within three decades they fought off three world superpowers. Veteran soldiers, local knowledge, sympathetic populace, terrain advantage.

None of America's aims could have been achieved there meaningfully.

Big guys lose to small guys all the time. Sometimes you've got to know how much it's worth risking. Britain was a world hegemon. Still lost to an upstart collection of colonies.

[pdonis]

> Veteran soldiers, local knowledge, sympathetic populace, terrain advantage.

And lots of aid from the USSR and China. Aid from two superpowers sure helps in fighting one superpower.

> None of America's aims could have been achieved there meaningfully.

It depends on what you think those aims were. The aim of preventing South Vietnam from being taken over by North Vietnam was achieved militarily; then the US Congress threw it away.

> Big guys lose to small guys all the time.

Big guys lose to small guys that are being helped out behind the scenes by other big guys all the time, yes. If the small guys have no help from other big guys, then no, the small guys pretty much just lose.