Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better?
The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen.
The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US.
Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet).
These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.
Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.
Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks:
* Depose's Saddam government
Accomplished.
* Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs
Failed. They were never there.
* Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq
Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath.
* Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs
Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS.
* End sanctions
Accomplished.
* Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced
Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete.
* Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"
Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region.
* Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government"
Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.
> Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"
The cynical read of this statement (extract resources from the invaded countries in order to enrich the American capital class) is the primary aim for all these conflicts.
The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.
The Panama and Suez Canals charge fees because they are artificial passageways, created by the blood and sweat of thousands. Both were huge investments.
The Panama Canal had cost 400-500 million USD and 25-30k lives to construct, when it opened in 1914.
The Suez Canal cost around 100 million USD and 100-120k lives to build in 1869.
Charging for transit through man-made infrastructure is fundamentally different from charging for passage through a natural international waterway.
> fundamentally incompatible with customary international law
So is bombing countries on a whim.
If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.
Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war.
Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.
US doesn't have the cards as Trump likes to say. "International Law" is the last word coming out of mouth of Americans I want to hear. US kidnapped Venezuela's leader. It is currently blockading Cuba. It blockaded Venezuela recently. Where was the so-called "International Law" back then? Losers can't be choosers. US lost the Iran war strategically. Now pay the piper. There is no second option. Welcome to the "Might Makes Right" world that US opted in for.
Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and now all their enemies are gone (disarmed and Armenians expelled) which presumably makes their citizens better off once they move into the empty territory.
Two things to note there. One, many did make a peep; I have friends, coworkers who both ardently discussed and even pointlessly protested in small groups with signs.
The other - I don't pay taxes to the Azeris, every moment of my productive life doesn't support the genocide there, and my soul is in some way not as blackened by the atrocities there. I think people care about Palestine because they rightly feel complicity. Maybe Russian citizens - whose labor indirectly goes to supporting Azeri atrocities - are up in arms?
It hasn’t. There hasn’t been a war in centuries where America didn’t obliterate its opponent. It loses politically because its people don’t want war, but it’s defeated militarily everyone it’s engaged with.
If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end).
Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than anyone else and has the shiniest of toys as a result, but "winning" in war is about effecting the outcomes that you want, not about whether your weapon systems are superior.
The US military has clearly failed to deliver the outcome that Americans wanted in many recent conflicts (Vietnam, Taliban); counting those wars as "lost" makes a lot of sense.
One of the reasons to do a war is to simply show the enemy that you are able and crazy enough to go to war with them over whatever grievances you had. This is called strategic deterrence.
You are making the folly of thinking of war like lawsuits, where one side wins and the other side loses, and the losing side goes home with nothing. This is not so.
If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
You can both "win" or both "lose" if your goals are not in direct conflict (rare).
I'd argue that the most important thing when trying to win wars is to aim for realistic outcomes.
The first gulf war was arguably a win because of realistic goals (get Iraq out of Kuwait and stop them from invading it again), while most other interventions in the region were basically "designed to fail", and unsurprisingly never achieved anything of note (and the problem was not lack of military capability).
Yes but if you spend some billions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, you have only demonstrated that you are willing to make your own citizens suffer with diminished resources for no outcome.
>If you're walking home from work and some person tries to mug you, even if they are unsuccessful, that will permanently change your behavior as if they had successfully robbed you anyway. Maybe you'll change your route. Maybe you won't walk and drive instead.
In global politics, this tends to make you want to increase your defenses so it doesn't happen again, and find local partners for that defense. This usually comes at the cost of US influence, not its increase.
Like Iran is looking at its current situation and going "The literal only deterrence we could have to prevent this is to develop a nuclear capability. The US cannot be trusted to deal with, and it is pointless to try."
A nuclear Iran can now only be avoided by scorched earth. Scorched earth will now just cause an already partly US hating population to hate them more and create matyrs. Theres no possible upside to this conflict.
With Afghanistan, I think people fixate on the fact that the Taliban is still there and while that's true, Al Qaeda has completely been wiped out (except fringe groups that have adopted the name) and OBL, the person most responsible for 9/11, was successfully killed by an attack launched out of Afghanistan. The current Taliban and whatever terrorist groups remain in that region no longer have an interest in hurting the US directly. The current Taliban is also very different from the one in 2001, almost geopolitically flipped in some ways (allied with India instead of Pakistan, and almost certainly responsible for majorly disrupting China's OBOR project in that region, another win for the US.
Not to mention, 20 years of no Taliban. An entire generation of Afghans grew up without being under a Taliban government.
“A Kourier has to establish space on the pavement. Predictable law-abiding behavior lulls drivers. They mentally assign you to a little box in the lane, assume you will stay there, can't handle it when you leave that little box.” - Snow Crash
Is it strategic deterrence, or just being so unreliably and inconsistent that insider information becomes more valuable?
Is it strategic to demonstrate a lack of planning or that you are a poor ally incapable of garnering support (either domestically or abroad)?
The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen.
The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US.
Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet).
These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.