Numerous times, Trump has claimed that since 1945, the U.S. military has largely forgotten how to achieve victory in wars, despite having an impressive track record in its first 170 years.
This assertion supports his decision to appoint Army veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who has criticized the military for becoming “emasculated” and weakened by “wokeness.”
Is there validity to Trump’s belief that the nation and its military have lost the ability to win? Some elements of truth do exist within his assertion. When analyzing wars since 1945, America’s record stands at a disappointing 1-2-2.
In 1991, U.S. forces, alongside coalition partners, achieved a decisive victory in Operation Desert Storm, shortly after a defense buildup initiated by Reagan. This success, however, is more of an anomaly when examining larger conflicts since World War II.
The Korean War (1950-1953) ended in a stalemate, as did more recent engagements in Iraq beginning in 2003. Additionally, the U.S. faced defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan, even though some strategic objectives, like countering Communist expansionism and terrorism, were arguably achieved in these otherwise troubled conflicts.
It’s also important to recognize that the U.S. military contributed to its own problems. General Douglas MacArthur’s mismanagement during the North Korean invasion in late 1950 followed a successful landing at Inchon that initially turned the tide of that war.
In Vietnam, Generals William Westmoreland and LeMay promoted a large-scale and often reckless use of firepower that backfired (these events predated any claims of military “wokeness”).
The failed rescue attempt during the Iran hostage crisis in 1980, along with the tragic Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, stemmed from poor engagement rules and inadequate force protection. Additionally, tactical missteps during the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia showcased further failures.
Despite these instances, Trump’s argument lacks credibility. Since the defense buildup under Reagan and the reforms of Goldwater-Nichols-Nunn in the 1980s, American armed forces have maintained their status as the world’s best.
Trump himself can take some credit for the generally robust state of the military today, including its recent success in decisively defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria from 2014 to around 2018. Before advancing his second-term agenda for military modernization and reform—regardless of Hegseth’s involvement—Trump ought to reflect on the broader historical context.
To begin with, the U.S. indeed secured a decisive victory in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, efficiently driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait under the command of Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf.
The U.S. also successfully deposed dictator Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989 and, alongside NATO allies, triumphed in the Kosovo war of 1999, successfully ousting Slobodan Milosevic’s militias with minimal casualties.
Successes have persisted into the 21st century, even considering the mixed outcomes in Iraq and the eventual loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2001, the military, with the CIA and various partners, swiftly defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrew Saddam in Iraq in 2003.
Throughout the Middle East and South Asia, the U.S. devastated al Qaeda’s leadership and much of its operatives in the decade following the September 11 attacks, culminating in the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. In 2020, Trump authorized the targeted killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani in Iraq.
Another highlight is the surge in Iraq during 2007 and 2008, which General David Petraeus designed and executed, marking one of the greatest recoveries in U.S. military history.
The mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, similar to those seen in Vietnam, were predominantly due to civilian decisions. The war in Iraq initiated by President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 deployed insufficient troops without a robust stabilization strategy post-Saddam.
Ambassador Paul Bremer, receiving limited notice before assuming the role of overseeing post-Saddam Iraq, implemented counterproductive policies that alienated numerous Sunni Baathists and dismissed Saddam’s soldiers, inadvertently fueling the insurgency.
The Bush and Rumsfeld administration pursued a “light footprint” strategy in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2008, granting the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate and reorganize.
Subsequently, President Barack Obama attempted a hasty surge that accelerated too quickly, seeking to remedy the decade of neglect before him. Later, Trump and Biden’s withdrawals from Afghanistan were perceived as unnecessary and poorly executed in 2020 and 2021.
When we task the military with challenging objectives and provide inconsistent or unclear guidance for achieving those missions, we cannot hold it solely accountable for the outcomes.
Trump’s assertions lack convincing evidence. The military remains highly capable and has effectively deterred conflicts in Europe and East Asia for decades. While there’s always room for enhancements, a case for extensive overhaul is unfounded.
Michael O’Hanlon serves as the Phil Knight Chair in Defense and Strategy at the Brookings Institution and is the author of “Military History for the Modern Strategist: America’s Major Wars Since 1861.”
