American Victory
Ending forever wars & rampant occupation
“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils…And it gives ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without Odium, sometimes even with popularity…” — George Washington, Farewell Address 1796
Fundamentally, I think Americans have lost sight of what ‘victory’ is. Many Americans believe victory is the ability to destroy or the ability to occupy. They see an American base in a far away land or an F-35 dropping bombs & think ‘that is victory’. In reality that is risk, that is waste and ultimately that is defeat.
American victory is the preservation of American Lives, Liberty & Property. Many of our policy choices clearly work counter to one or more of these three critical measures. We have bases scattered throughout the world leaving American lives in danger at the cost to the American tax payer. We go to war without clear goals or an understanding of how it achieves or contributes to the above defined victory.
Audio version available here:
Disclosure: The book links in this article are Amazon affiliate links, meaning that at no additional cost to you, I may receive a commission if you click through and make a purchase.
Planning for Victory
I think a missing aspect in striving for victory is planning based on what is feasibly possible. If you have attended any form of business training you have heard of SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, ACHIEVABLE, Relevant, Time-Bound). This simple acronym could have saved much heart-ache for the American people and our military (at the expense of the military industrial complex).
Iraq 1
In the first war with Iraq, the United States went in with the goal of pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. Its specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, though it wasn’t time bound. In the end, US forces were able to push Iraq out with relative ease, The entirety of the operation was 6 months from the build up of ‘desert shield’ to the offensive ‘desert sabre’. The ground offensive ‘Desert Sabre’ lasted only 4 days before Saddam called for a retreat. Mission (actually) Accomplished.
Afghanistan
The use of force authorization for Afghanistan is short, primarily because it is a blank check. There are no definitions of victory. There are no limitations beyond what “he [The President] determines”. The war on terror was meant to be continuous.
You don’t have to take my word for it, General James Mattis, a one time favorite among my fellow Marines, stated in his book “Call Sign Chaos” how he was “prepared to deploy Special Ops teams and Marine rifle platoons, all with forward observers who could direct air and artillery fire”. He had a plan to cutoff all possible routes of Bin Laden’s escape and to “destroy Al Qaeda’s high command”. After proposing his plan he received silence in return, he called around frantically trying to get approval. Instead another plan went forward where tribal fighters would ‘win the war’. They did not, they were ill-equipped and ill trained. Bin Laden and many others escaped and the war continued for 20 more years until our ultimate and embarrassing defeat.
Iraq War 2
Look below at the ‘joint resolution’ regarding the use of force in Iraq. The entire left side is based on lies. There were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMD), no one EVER thought Iraq could attack the US. The right side is effectively acknowledging the left side is garbage. It is appealing to the nation’s desire for vengeance after 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in fact, one of the points of anger of Bin Laden is that the Saudis wanted the US to defend them and not him [1]! The use of force itself is effectively undefined due to its vagueness “defend the national security of the United States” yet no national security interests were defined to be under threat. The 2nd Iraq war was not meant to be won, like the ‘war on terror’, it was meant to be continuous.
The Military Industrial Complex
If you find yourself asking ‘why would our leaders do this’. I go into detail in War is STILL a Racket how the US is led into wars for profits. This is not a new problem, General Butler’s classic “War is A Racket” discusses it in reference to World War One. Many, if not most of “our” politicians are not interested in American Victory, they are interested in profits. Unending, poorly planned wars and strategies are a good ticket to profit for the racket.
Destruction and death
Destruction & death do not translate to victory. They can win battles, but not wars. The BBC very clearly and succinctly spells this out when discussing the US defeat in Vietnam. “The Americans tried to win the war from the air. Their tactics were brutal. As a result of this brutality and lack of sensitivity, they turned the Vietnamese people against them”[2]. It is important also to note how a military defeat in battle (like the Tet Offensive) can still lead to a strategic victory[3]. Marines should be familiar with the battle for Hue city, ‘house to house, street by street’, the fighting was captured by journalists and helped put an end to the war.
Counter Insurgency
US General McChyrstal again ‘discovered’ this reality with “COIN Mathematics”.
“Let us say that there are 10 in a certain area. Following a military operation, two are killed. How many insurgents are left? Traditional mathematics would say that eight would be left…There are more likely to be as many as 20, because each one you killed has a brother, father, son and friends”[4]
We saw a shift in strategy in Iraq War 2 when we switched to Counter Insurgency (COIN) and an effort to win “hearts and minds”. This doctrine explicitly states that “Ultimate success in counterinsurgency operations is normally gained by protecting the population, not the counterinsurgency force”[5]. I mentioned the strategy in Zionism, an Obstacle to Peace when comparing US force operation in Ramadi to zionist operations in Gaza (excerpt of that article pictured below)
I write this to show that the US military, at least on paper KNOWS that ‘bombs and bullets’ are not effective at winning these type of conflicts. As I have stated before, we are very adept at winning battles, but we have lost every war since WW2 (Iraq 1 turned to a loss when we went back there). This knowledge invalidates our drone campaigns, and it invalidates our bombings in Yemen (and elsewhere). Even Biden acknowledges the futility of this tactic “When you say working, are they stopping the Houthis, no. Are they going to continue, yes,” [6]. Biden is admitting here to bombing Yemen, at the monetary and strategic expense of the United States. To drive this point home, we have seen mass support of the Houthis following our strikes [7], we solidified their power after trying for a decade to thwart it .
Israel’s choice of Genocide
I don’t think there is a clearer example than what we see in Gaza today. 70-80% of the the homes have damaged or destroyed [8], tens of thousands of civilians have been killed including more than 15000 children. Despite this, Hamas is still able to not only conduct operations on the ground including complex ambushes, it is able to still launch its (highly ineffective) homemade rockets towards Israel [9].
In Zionism, an Obstacle to Peace, I cover some of the costs to Israel, including the loss of American support. Since the writing of that article Israel has faced global opposition including global college protests[10]. AIPAC is now openly called out by patriotic American politicians and the crimes of those complicit in genocide are also shared to the world. As an American who grew up knowing the injustice of the zionist occupation of Palestine, I can definitively say that Palestine has more support in America now than ever. It is a late, but welcome sight. That is not ‘victory’ for Israel, both on the ground and throughout the world Israel is being defeated.
When the occupation forces began their attack on Gaza, I pointed out that they do not have the manpower to achieve their stated goal of ‘eliminating Hamas’. This was simple math based on previous battles such as the battle of Mosul. Based on that battle, israel would have needed 320,000-1.3 million combat troops to ‘eliminate Hamas’. They saw this and decided, rather than ‘take a victory’ of small scale, such as targeted assassinations etc, they would go instead for a larger scale defeat. Not only is the IDF being defeated on the ground (Hamas still killing IDF soldiers is a defeat of the IDF’s own stated goals), it is now ALSO being defeated in the global arena. More states than ever recognize Palestine and as described above, there is more opposition to the zionist occupation than ever. Had israel planned for the victory they could achieve, they would have been in a FAR superior position and would have thwarted Hamas’ goals.
Bases, what are they good for?
America currently has 4,790 bases worldwide[11] and we have 168,000 troops overseas (see below graphic)[12]. We are told that our bases throughout the world are in “America’s Interest”. Often the relationship is circular, they need to be there to protect our troops that need to be there to protect our bases. The argument made in this article is essentially that ‘its cheaper to build and maintain a base than it is an aircraft carrier’. They go on to discuss reducing costs etc. It doesn’t however appropriately factor in two critical components. First, the vulnerability of US forces scattered throughout the world, largely undefended. Second, the political cost for us occupying a nation, whether the government invited us or not.
Why are we there?
Middle East
We were not at a constant state of war in the Middle East until we chose to be in a constant state of war in the Middle East. From the fall of the Ottoman Empire we began meddling in local affairs, we ignored the local populations and the recommendations from the King-Crane Commission [14], unsurprisingly, this was again under America’s worst President, Woodrow Wilson. In 1953 we overthrew Democracy in Iran on behalf of British control of their oil, this led to the Shah taking power until he was ultimately overthrown in 1979 [15]. One act that truly shocked me, was when I read of our accidental shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, where 290 people were killed [16]. This meddling is the basis for our ‘required presence’ in the Middle East.
Worth Watching: Ron Paul explains blowback to idiots in this classic clip
East Asia & the Pacific
Asia differs from our deployments in the Middle East due to the areas relative stability & the fact that we have not been regularly killing people there (at least not since Vietnam). These deployments still are not in our favor. In South Korea we are stationed as a trip wire for war, South Korea buys this trip wire for a little over $1 Billion[17]. With North Korea a nuclear armed country, the risk to American life and property is absurdly high.
In Japan, our agreement has us there to defend Japan in the event of attack. The risk to American lives & property is primarily due to our presence there. Strategically, while I understand the potential threat of China , I don’t think our presence in Japan does anything but leave ~50,000 troops there to die in the event of a war. We would not be able to conduct an ‘invasion’ of China in response & as mentioned in America’s Waning Power, the US stockpile of munitions would be exhausted in a week were China to invade Taiwan (I imagine the same in regards to Japan).
Trade
I have heard some argue that ‘we need our bases to secure trade’. This absurd notion completely ignores and rejects the basis of Capitalism. If anything trade flows despite military presence, not because of it. Some of the nations we occupy & protect, predominantly trade with China, not with us. Our ongoing support of Israel is actually closing the Red Sea to us, despite our efforts. The extensive base structure is not there to stop small boats of Somali Pirates either.
Political costs
Many of our bases are located in countries you would think us more likely to topple than to support. However, the morally bankrupt and inconsistent nature of our foreign policy will have us propping up dictators wherever it ‘benefits’ us. If we are propping up a dictator in order to keep our base operational, the populace will resent us. We can see this in Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, it has been a major base for decades. The US state department reported on Bahrain [18]:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, censorship, and enforcement or threat to enforce criminal libel laws to limit expression; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; restrictions on freedom of movement and residence within the territory of a state and on the right to leave the country; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations.”
Not only does supporting tyranny damage our local reputation and post-dictator staying power, it negatively impacts our credibility throughout the world. How can we claim our foreign policy is to ‘spread democracy’ when we are more often than not supporting tyranny?
Security Costs
If we leave our troops scattered too thin, we are effectively using them as ‘human tripwires’ for conflict, a ‘use to start war’ button for the military industrial complex. It is pivotal that we understand that our presence is the source of animosity and that without it (in time) that animosity will dissipate. If we continue this failed strategy we will see more dead service members like those at the largely undefended Outpost 22 where 3 US soldiers were killed[19]. The advent of cheap drone warfare & the advancements in missile/rockets make our ‘leave behind’ strategy more dangerous than ever. In previous articles I reviewed Hezbollah & Iran’s capabilities, which can grant some insights to the changing strategic landscape.
In Asia we are outmatched by China, primarily due to our proximity to mainland China. We are again there as tripwires for war, a strategy that is a net negative on every metric of victory. It is important to note, that while I think war on this front is LESS likely, it would be exponentially more devastating than any attacks in the Middle East if it occurred.
Ultimately these bases serve one cause, the profits of the aforementioned military industrial complex. No nation in the middle east has the capabilities to strike the United States. Our presence in Asia is doing little, if not having a negative impact on our security. Despite this, withdrawing from them will likely be a bit painful , but it is necessary for us to be able to operate and thrive in the world. Buying and bullying friends, what I call ‘bomb and gun diplomacy’ is a failed strategy that is crumbling as we speak.
NOTE: I cover another aspect of the damage these wars inflict on us here
Fewer Bases & less destruction
We see how our countless bases ultimately do NOT serve American interests. They are not protecting American Liberty and they exist to the detriment of property (our tax money) and American Lives. Remember the smart goals? Victory must be RELEVANT to AMERICAN lives, liberty & property. We can see how merely using the ‘bomb & the gun’ is also counter to US goals, the blowback creates significant risks to American lives, which then results in the state taking our Liberty for ‘security reasons’ & our property to further fund the war machine.
Troop Deployments & Missions
As I wrote out in War Is Still A Racket, no troops should go overseas without an explicit authorization from congress. As detailed in that article, these bills must be ‘single issue’ and follow the provided structure. I would probably even add a requirement that it be related to the overall victory (life, liberty & property). This provides simplicity in understanding and details to (hopefully) spell out how things can go wrong. I think with bills explicitly stating how many people may die and what blowback we may face, the prevalence of our destructive campaigns will significantly decrease.
A New Security Doctrine
I have laid out previously in America’s Waning Power, the imbalance between cost and effectiveness our larger equipment (carriers, tanks, jets) are faced with. The United States should adapt with the times. We can, for a fraction of the cost, share with our allies large quantities of short-medium range missiles which can continue to act as a deterrent while costing a fraction of current expenditures. Additionally, as seen by non-state actors throughout the world, training seems to be relatively easy. The cost of an F16 is ~$63 million, or 31 tomahawks. Each of these has to be equipped with missiles, some of which are individually more expensive than a tomahawk missile. The maintenance costs to fly these aircraft was a surprise to me as well. The F-16 costs ~$27,000 per flight hour, the F-35 about $42,000 per hour & the F-22 is a staggering $85,325 per hour[20]! The only thing that makes that seem affordable to fly is the cost to fly our bombers, the B-1B Lancer tops that list at $173,014 per hour[20]. Without the need for extensive and ongoing maintenance and training related to our aircraft, our troop deployments can be significantly reduced. This will obviously be a loss for the Military Industrial Complex but at reduced cost & reduced risk of American lives it is a clear victory for the American people.
A respectably defensive posture
Initially, I thought to write of why we cannot have anymore ‘tripwire’ bases. As I tried to formulate what would be ‘ok’ bases I realized why it is so hard. There are no good foreign bases. All foreign bases are putting Americans in harms way while simultaneously agitating some adversary, who likely became an adversary because of our bases’ presence. The only permanent or semi-permanent positioning of American troops should be within America’s borders. The policy of ‘world police’ has failed us. We should work to mend ties with enemies born out of this failed policy while also preparing our former hosts for our absence.
Conclusion
We are risking American lives at great monetary cost with no benefit to the American people. Additionally, our foreign policy failures have directly impacted our liberty at home. Infringements like the Patriot act & NSA spying on Americans were born out of ‘combatting enemies’ that our ongoing rampant destruction & military occupations created to begin with.
American victory, is the preservation of American Life, Liberty & Property. The best method to preserve this is to keep American Troops in America. America does not owe ANY nation allegiance and no foreign nation is worthy of compromising our victory. Our foreign bases are used to launch attacks on behalf of foreign or convoluted interests, close them all. Any act of war must be treated with the gravity it entails. It must come from congress, it cannot be a blank check for destruction, it must be SMART.
Bring our troops home, spend our money on America, stop making enemies and stop destroying our freedom.
Related Articles
To Save the Soul of America
America's Waning Power
A Wider War: Supply Chain & Restraint
Resources
Follow TrackAIPAC on X to see some of the bribes these politicians receive.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/29/mapping-pro-palestine-campus-protests-around-the-world
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/federal/federal-permitting/department-defense-dod
https://www.americansecurityproject.org/national-security-strategy/u-s-bases-in-the-middle-east/
https://www.publicbooks.org/versailles-arab-desires-arab-futures/
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days
https://www.cato.org/commentary/its-time-rethink-us-military-ties-south-korea
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/bahrain/
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/06/tower-22-drone-troops-air-defense/
https://www.csis.org/analysis/cost-and-value-air-and-missile-defense-intercepts
Victory is not the goal. Expending the weapons of acquired over the past ten years is the goal in order to replenish the weapons stockpile and more to increase the value of the military manufacturers again and again.