GUEST POST BY DAVE MILLER

 

Why America Keeps Winning Wars and Losing Countries

1979 — Iranian Hostage Rescue — Failure — Carter
1983 — Grenada Invasion — Success — Reagan
1986 — Libya Bombing — Mixed — Reagan
1989 — Panama Invasion — Success — Bush I
1990–91 — First Gulf War — Success — Bush I
1993 — Somalia / U.N. Intervention — Failure — Clinton
1995–99 — Bosnia / Kosovo Intervention — Success — Clinton
2001 — Afghanistan War — Failure — Bush II
2003 — Iraq War — Failure — Bush II
2011 — Libya Intervention — Failure — Obama

Current / Still Developing Operations:

2026 — Venezuela Intervention — Too Early to Judge — Trump
2026 — Iran Conflict — Mixed / Still Unfolding — Trump

If we analyze ten major U.S. military operations from 1979 through 2011, several patterns begin to emerge.

Four are generally viewed as clear failures.
Four are widely seen as successful.
One produced mixed results.
And one, depending on perspective, still remains debated.

For the sake of clarity, I’ve separated the current Venezuela and Iran conflicts from the historical list because both are still unfolding and their long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

Now let’s break the earlier operations down further.

Of the four clearest failures, three came under Democratic presidents. Notably, those failures were largely tactical, peacekeeping, or humanitarian-style interventions rather than conventional wars in the traditional sense. By contrast, the two large-scale modern war failures most Americans think of — Iraq and Afghanistan — were initiated under Republican leadership.

Looking at the broader list, several trends appear.

1. Democratic presidents have more often struggled in limited military or humanitarian interventions.
2. Republican presidents have overseen America’s most significant modern conventional war failures.
3. President George H. W. Bush stands out as a clear outlier.

Perhaps there is a reason Bush I avoided a major military failure during his presidency.

Some might call it luck. But perhaps it was experience.

Bush was the only elected president since 1980 with direct combat experience. He was the only president of that era to have lived overseas in an official U.S. government role. He served diplomatically as ambassador to the United Nations and later as envoy to China. He also led the CIA.

That combination mattered.

Bush’s experience inside both the military and diplomatic worlds, including service as a decorated WWII naval aviator, gave him a strong understanding of both the reach and the limits of American power. He understood that while the United States could win militarily almost anywhere on earth, lasting victory required diplomacy, coalition-building, and political clarity.

President Trump and many of his supporters have sharply criticized America’s allies for failing to fully support the current Iran conflict. But did Trump do the difficult diplomatic work necessary to bring those allies onboard before military action began, as Bush did before the First Gulf War?

The answer appears to be no.

In 1975, before the fall of Saigon, U.S. Colonel Harry "Champ" Summers reportedly told North Vietnamese Colonel Nguyễn Đôn Tu, “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.”

The Vietnamese officer is said to have replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.”

That exchange still haunts American foreign policy.

When the United States commits fully to a military operation — Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, or Venezuela — it does so with overwhelming firepower. Tactical defeat on the battlefield is rare. Yes, soldiers die, mistakes happen, and disasters occasionally occur, as they did during the failed Iranian hostage rescue mission in the desert.

But generally speaking, America wins the war.

The greater challenge comes afterward.

As in Vietnam and much of the Middle East, America often struggles not with winning wars, but with winning the peace.

Venezuela and Iran may eventually fit this historical pattern, but it is still too early to classify either with confidence. Venezuela may ultimately look like a tactical success, but the deeper question is whether the aftermath can be stabilized politically and economically. Iran is even harder to judge because the stated objectives and strategic endgame continue to evolve.

Perhaps what America needs are more leaders shaped by military service, diplomacy, and strategic restraint... and fewer leaders shaped primarily by celebrity and media culture.