Why America Keeps Losing Its Wars

James Madison understood the need for, and wisdom of, formal Congressional declarations of war

James Madison understood the need for, and wisdom of, formal Congressional declarations of war

Walter Stewart (Major General, US Army, retired)

My essay explains why America is losing its wars and offers a simple solution – one requiring nothing more than moral courage on the part of our most senior military officers.

1.  America is losing its wars because they are unconstitutional to begin with. They are unconstitutional because they are undeclared.

If America’s wars are not worth formal Congressional declarations, which act to unite the American people, they are by that fact not worth fighting.  However, in the classic definition of insanity, America’s leaders keep doing the same thing over and over – fighting undeclared and unnecessary wars without rallying the support of the people – expecting different results.

2.  Strategic-level commissioned officers who swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution have an obligation to protest these wars.  However, none have. Indeed, our most senior officers have even misstated their oaths, suggesting they are sworn to obey the president rather than to defend the Constitution.  In the process, they fall prey to a version of the Nuremberg Defense of “I was just following orders.”

Even when senior officers recognize the folly and illegality of America’s wars, they refuse to resign in protest.  Why?  Because they convince themselves they can better effect change within the system.  Or they conclude they are beholden by civilian authority to follow orders.  Or they believe that resignation would be disruptive and disloyal.  But such excuses are corrosive to their oath of office, an oath that officers – especially the most senior – must find the personal integrity and moral courage to follow.

3.  Until America returns to declared wars by Congress that have the support of the people, America will continue to lose its wars, further weakening itself while sowing the seeds for even more unconstitutional — and unwinnable — wars.


In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the president asked Congress for a Declaration of War, got it, and began to steel the nation for the sacrifices necessary for victory.  In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the president cowed Congress into ceding its war-making powers (in the form of an authorization for the use of military force), sent the military into indecisive action in Afghanistan, declared war on a country uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks (Iraq), and sent the American people to shop.

Well into its second decade, the undeclared and undefined “Global War on Terror” has yet to gain any measure of security for America’s profligate expenditure of lives and treasure.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, establishing our country as a republic, wanted no part of a system that codified the executive as the decider of war and peace.  As James Madison wrote:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.  They are specifically barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting law.

In the general distribution of powers, we find that of declaring war expressly vested in the Congress, where every other legislative power is declared to be vested, and without any other qualification than what is common to every other legislative act.  The constitutional idea of this power would seem then clearly to be, that it is of a legislative and not an executive nature.

War is a legislative power.  Repeat that – again and again – and ask yourself why our leaders persist in perverting the clear intent of framers like James Madison.

The Vietnam Perversion

“Reports circulated that my [congressional] testimony had provoked a near revolt among the [military] chiefs.  I doubt it.”[i]

                            —Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense (1961-1968)

The moral obligations of senior leaders are spelled out in service guides such as FM 22-103 (Leadership and Command at Senior Levels).[ii]  With this in mind, one wonders why no chief of service or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has used the “direct and indirect influence” of his position to support the Constitution by demanding wars be declared by Congress.

This would be no “revolt” (as the press would label it), but a principled exercise of duties inherent to their offices alone, and if the few remaining years of a long career are sacrificed, so be it.

In the strategic void that was and is Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the sacrifices made by young troops that scale those of seniors, but it is nonsense to suppose that lower grade officers abandoning careers in protest might effect significant change.  Who now remembers former Marine and State Department officer Matthew P. Hoh resigning in September 2009 over his lost confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States presence in Afghanistan? And even if Hoh is remembered, the moral authority his action brought is that of the proverbial knife to a gunfight.

To imagine something greater, we must go back to the Vietnam War and the documented “almost” of a former Chief of Staff of the Army.  One might think that subsequent chiefs and chairmen know this history, but judging from years of silence over the lack of strategic focus in our Global War on Terror, one knows they do not.

Historian Lewis Sorley, in his book “Honorable Warrior: General Harold K. Johnson and the Ethics of Command,” details a near-protest resignation that had it taken place would have saved thousands from death in Vietnam, preserved our republican army, and perhaps of greatest consequence, forced Congress to do its duty in that war and future wars.[iii]

In his last years, Johnson [Chief of Staff, US Army, 1964-1968] revisited an issue that had long plagued him: resignation in protest.  Clearly, Johnson’s personal example of principled leadership constituted one of the most meaningful contributions to the Army he led in those troubled times.  He characteristically held himself to extremely demanding standards, and sometimes concluded that he did not measure up.  During the course of his stewardship as Chief of Staff, he had on a number of occasions contemplated resignation in protest, but each time he drew back, concluding that he could do more good by continuing to serve.[iv]

Sorely goes on the report how Johnson, late in life, was asked by a friend if he “had to live…life over again, what would you do different?”  In answer, Johnson returned to his moral failure:

I remember the day I was ready to go over to the Oval Office and give my four stars to the President and tell him, “You have refused to tell the country they cannot fight a war without mobilization; you have required me to send men into battle with little hope of their ultimate victory; and you have forced us in the military to violate almost every one of the principles of war in Vietnam.  Therefore, I resign and will hold a press conference after I walk out of your door.”

Then, added Johnson with a look of anguish, “I made the typical mistake of believing I could do more for the country and Army if I stayed in than if I got out.  I am now going to my grave with that lapse in moral courage on my back.”[v]

We would have to go back to George Washington’s accumulated militia and Continental Army service to find an Army chief who experienced more than a fraction of the hardships and risks experienced by Harold K. Johnson.  And for both, at the end, it was not physical courage that mattered, but moral.

Imagining a Different Path to War in Iraq after 9/11

For many veterans of the Vietnam War, and for others who have studied its history, the protest resignation of service chiefs and/or chairmen over morally repugnant or unconstitutional orders is an unfulfilled dream.  So too for Iraq today, for there have been no resignations by senior officers over the Executive decision to wage undeclared war.  With the consequences of this misbegotten war and the Afghan War accelerating the economic, military, and social decline of the nation, those at the pinnacle of uniformed success follow an unwritten rule of silence into the comfort of lifelong pensions and the sinecure of military-industrial entities that prosper only so long as the nation prospers.

How might things have been different with Iraq (and, indirectly, Afghanistan and al Qaeda) if even one or two of America’s senior generals had made a stand for the Constitution by insisting there would be a declaration of war or an immediate post-resignation news conference?[vi]  We can speculate that OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) and the White House would have gone into crisis mode followed by immediate gaming as to whether the protestor or protestors could be fired, replacements found, and all silenced as to what was taking place.  While the first of these actions is certain and the second all too probable, the third is not: the very “noise” crisis-managers would seek to avoid would be forced, with Congressional hearings certain to raise the crescendo.

Continuing, perhaps as a result of this moral stand, the president may have decided war with Iraq was unnecessary, or, firm in his convictions and reminded of his own oath, he gathers his reasons, as others before him have done, and asks Congress for a formal declaration of war.  Summarizing his appeal, he might even use words like this:

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and accumulating wrongs, or opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events…is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government.  In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.[vii]

Hooah!  As the world’s greatest deliberative body acts on its most consequential duty, the Constitution gets a shot of adrenalin.  One would have hoped the collective vision of the 535 men and women in Congress would have seen through the phoniness of Ahmed Chalabi, Curveball, and specious “yellow cake” and terrorist support claims.  The few service veterans among the 535, schooled in the military arts, would surely have examined the possibility of strategic disinformation aimed at duping the United States into doing what others could not: overthrow Saddam Hussein.

And as for Hussein himself – an interested observer who would have known the American people have never lost a declared war[viii] — he might have approached Congress with reminders of his secularism in a neighborhood of Islamic theocracies; sent Iraqi Christians to testify to the same; compared Iraq’s opportunities for females with fundamentalist Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia; brought out the picture of his warm greeting to presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld in the 1980s; called attention to the fact that Iraq is a check on Iran, the reason for the Rumsfeld picture; and even acquiesced to opening his country to as many weapons inspectors as we would like to send.[ix]

But enough speculation about what might have come from courageous senior officers bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.  Reality is more revealing.  Let’s take a look at what two very senior officers had to say about their “duty.”

I Must Follow Orders: Senior Military Officers Misstating their Constitutional Duty

On October 25, 2007, Admiral Mike Mullen, US Navy, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared at a function sponsored by the Center for a New American Security.  He fielded the following question related to a scenario proposing a protest resignation by senior officers:

Questioner:  I was wondering if you had seen the recent article … calling for the resignation of generals in the future should they feel that the civilian leadership has chosen a course of action that is immoral or unconstitutional with regards to military action, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on that and how you would treat men under your leadership, generals, that there was the general’s revolt earlier this year, what your thoughts were on that, what is the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in preventing another – preventing military action that could be possibly immoral or unconstitutional[?]

Admiral Mullen:  I don’t think I read that article, but I have certainly read a few about it, about that issue.

I approach this from relatively simply.  I think that civilian control [of the] military is vital.  It is a bedrock issue for our country.  It has worked for some 231 years, and that we need to pay an awful lot of attention to its preservation, and that when we walk off of that, whoever we are, we do so and create high risks, and it is very dangerous for us.  That is above all else.

I believe that men and women who serve who disagree with our civilian leaders on a policy, whatever it might be, that their statement for the record, if they are unable to stay or if they get to a point where they disagree so strongly, that their statement for the record is that they vote with their feet and leave, and they should.  And I feel very strongly about both aspects of that and would leave it exactly at that.

I think the standards of integrity and courage and leadership that we represent in the United States military are so vital and precious that we have to ensure that we don’t in any way, shape or form jeopardize that.

We all raise our right hand, swear to support the Constitution and carry out the orders we are given, and we should do that, and if we can’t do that, then we should leave. [x] 

There’s a tension in Mullen’s reply between duty to the Republic and the Constitution versus obedience to the Commander-in-Chief and subservience to orders.  But there shouldn’t be.  A federal officer’s oath is clear: it’s the Constitution that binds him, and no other authority.

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, U.S. Army retired, stated his confusion more baldly.  Appearing on C-Span’s Washington Journal on May 7, 2008, Sanchez stated that “In the case of an officer, he swears to obey the orders of the president.”

Echoing General Johnson’s rational for not acting during Vietnam, Sanchez went on to relate how he threatened resignation when ordered to withdraw from Fallujah under fire but relented after concluding the action would place his “Soldiers and Marines in considerably increased risk.”

The fog of war may back officers in the battlespace, but it’s King George III (and similar tyrants) who backs those thinking themselves “sworn to obey.”

Admittedly, two examples do not provide a conclusive proof.  But how often do uniformed leaders who held or hold our most consequential positions during a time of war reach to their oaths?  Mullen and Sanchez did, and neither got it fully right.

The Need for Moral Courage

There is an insidious message here to an officer corps that is ever mindful that the Constitution makes no promotions: You are sworn to carry out orders.  Chairmen and Chiefs, other than entrée into the retirement riches of the military-industrial complex, what do you stand for?[xi]

Senior officers in the Vietnam War rocked no boats, saw thousands of brothers (and a few sisters) to their deaths, knowing there was little hope of ultimate victory.  They lost a war.  Even worse, they lost America’s citizen army that history marks as the essence of republican virtue.[xii]  The strategic consequences flowing from this failure of “patriotic self-abnegation” now bleeds us on the battlefield and everywhere else.

As we debate similarities between Vietnam and the asymmetric glue traps that were and are Iraq and Afghanistan (and their future equivalents), there are factors in lock-step: tactical-level troops going about their bloody business with valor and determination, and strategic-level leaders collapsed into the operational and tactical.  And when pressed on it, now as then, in large measure, it is the “sworn to obey” mindset of immediate action followed by buck-passing.  We either expunge this from the ranks or become the failed defenders of a failed nation.

Torn by the greatest moral dilemma ever faced by an American president — ending slavery by the easy impermanence of executive order or the difficult permanence of due process — Lincoln did not waiver in his allegiance to the Constitution.  We now seek men and women possessed of such faith to lead us in a new century.  In this, we could not do better than plumb the ranks of young service men and women moving into uniformed and non-uniformed senior leadership.  Sworn to the Constitution and better schooled in what that means, these patriots must find the courage to do what their predecessors would not.

Walt Stewart rose from a private in the army of regulars, reservists, and draftees raised to fight in Vietnam, to a major general serving with the thousands of citizen-soldiers of the 28th Infantry Division, Pennsylvania Army National Guard.  Now retired, Stewart is a strong advocate for a citizen-military and a saner world.


[i] Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect: The tragedy and lessons of Vietnam, (New York, New York: Vintage Books, 1996) 291.

[ii] FM 22-103, Leadership and Command at Senior Levels, June 1987, consists of seven chapters and six annexes.  Of its many paragraphs only three reference the Constitution.  We reap what we sow.

[iii] In an interview conducted on 21 May 1974, in the context of Congressional impeachment actions following “Watergate,” General Johnson gave his thoughts on the state of Congress: “Congress has reasserted a degree of equality, and at the same time, I think this is a paradox, they sort of, at least right now in May of 1974, have not accepted fully the responsibility that goes along with the authority they are trying to exert.  They are not known to carry a full share of responsibility, they would rather shift it elsewhere.”  (Oral History Interview Number 15 with General Harold K. Johnson, US Army, Retired.  The interview was conducted by LTC James B. Agnew and is part of the Johnson File, Military History Institute, Carlisle, PA.)

[iv] Lewis Sorley, Honorable warrior: General Harold K. Johnson and the ethics of command, (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1998) 303.

[v] Ibid, 304.

[vi] Defenders of the Executive decision to invade Iraq will claim the blanket war-making authority Congress granted President George W. Bush was a “declaration.”  Only when solemn oaths and solemn processes are no longer solemn!  There is no middle ground between the rule of law and the rule of men.

[vii] From President James Madison’s war message to Congress, June 1, 1812.  Madison the president practiced what Madison the Framer preached.

[viii] The Second Continental Congress made our first “declaration of war” and passed it into law on July 4, 1776.  Lord Admiral Richard Howe, commissioned by King George III to offer peace to the colonies, in a September 11, 1776, meeting with a congressional committee led by Benjamin Franklin notes its effect: “That they themselves [the colonials] had changed the ground since he left England by their Declaration of Independence, which, if it could not be got over, precluded him from all Treaty, as they must know, and he had explicitly said so in his Letter to Dr. Franklin, that he had not, nor did he expect ever to have, Powers to consider the Colonies in the light of Independent States.”  The meeting was recorded by Howe’s secretary, Henry Strachey.  With the American Army driven from Long Island only days before, Howe’s was a position of strength the Declaration of Independence negated.

[ix] Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but for part of his reign he was “our tyrant.”  Also, under his forced secularism, a Christian community founded by St. Thomas the Apostle prospered.  Since our invasion, this community is dead, under threat of death, ordered to convert, paying the Jizya, or displaced.  And Iraq’s constitution, written under our direction, assures the inevitable rule of Islamic law (Sharia).  That there has been so little attention to these strategic failures is astonishing.

[x] Mullen’s presentation, “Challenges and Opportunities of the Global Strategic Landscape” was moderated by Michele Flournoy, covered by C-Span, and transcribed by Malloy Transcription Service.  Surprisingly, Admiral Mullen seemed poorly prepared to answer “the” senior leader question from the Vietnam War.  That the Chairman of the JCS believes himself sworn to obey is indicative of erosion at the very top of our military leadership.

[xi] This is a tough question, but in the interest of the “standards of integrity and courage and leadership” seniors represent, and how the oath is the foundation of all three, what other is there?  That a “sworn to obey” mindset trumps integrity, courage, and leadership is evident in the American people being fed, year after year, nonsense about Iraq and Afghanistan.  For example: General Richard Myers, in 2005, trumpeting “100 Iraqi battalions equipped and trained,” followed, in 2006, by General Peter Pace solemnly stating that in Iraq things are “going very, very well.”  In the new media environment, seniors no longer speak solely to cowed press pools, news shows, and think-tank audiences, but to bloggers and E-press skeptics weighing their words against open source information that might prove otherwise.

[xii] Here I refer to the end of the draft, a subject I address in the July-August 2006 edition of Military Review: “The All-Volunteer Army: Can We Still Claim Success?”  Adrian R. Lewis, Ph.D., adds his voice in the November-December 2009 edition: Conscription, the Republic and America’s Future.  Lewis asks, “Are we following the path to decline paved by the Romans?”  My answer is not only do we follow it, but we near its end. (Those who dispute this conclusion must consider “the most powerful nation the world has ever known” has been brought to military despair by an enemy that never amounted to more than lightly armed irregulars using improvised explosive devices to advantage.)  As for a renewal of conscription?  Only when Chinese frigates sit locked and loaded in New York Harbor demanding hard assets in exchange for worthless Federal Reserve notes.

52 thoughts on “Why America Keeps Losing Its Wars

  1. The thoughts so well expressed here are almost completely absent from our national discourse, and seem to me vital to the (still possible) preservation of our republic. There is nothing else for it but to continue to try to ignite some semblance of a responsible national consciousness about actions and consequences.

    • Thank you Gen. Stewart for speaking out. I would agree that if some senior officers would have publically spoken out and resigned it may have helped slow down the move to war. Let us remember though what happened to Shinseki who merely voiced dissent. He was summarily sent to purgatory.
      This was a well planned ‘coup’ by the corporatists in our government to use 9/11 as an excuse to abandon the Constitution and set up an authoritarian state. I doubt that even if several senior officers resigned it would have made much difference. The coup planners made sure that the media, both print and electronic, were supporters either through bullying or convergence of interest. Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil pointed out in his book that even before 9/11 in the first cabinet meeting he attended ,Cheney and Bush, et al wanted to talk about regime change in Iraq, not domestic and fiscal policy. It befuddled him.
      I agree that the ‘moral’ route is particularly applicable to the senior officer corps. They have specifically sworn an oath, just as the president, has, to defend the Constitution. Obeying the Commander in Chief is several steps below that oath and the Nuremburg Trials sealed that one. In the case where the Commander in Chief ignores the Constitution and the political establishment, in toto, supports him certainly the military leadership should speak up but it gets more difficult. . I think their careerist decisions only makes them look small and would not have changed the course of the political coup that took place following 9/11. But after all, if they don’t support unconstitutional war they won’t have a cushy, well paying job in the armaments industry waiting for them when they retire.
      During the Vietnam war I met a group of Academy graduates who were field commanders in Vietnam who resigned their commissions in protest and we arranged speaking engagements for them in the media. They were moral young men.

      • I’m trying to remember officer protest resignations during the Vietnam war but cannot. At the time, I gave little thought to the oath and much to the discipline of duty. After all, we grew up hearing the stories of those who fought WWII, and in the “Red Menace” context of that one, we would have ours.

        It being the nature of youth to get into the fight, and in the absence of Constitutional tempering of this willingness – a Declaration of War – I ask seniors to do what Congress will not. In other words, take care of the troops by keeping them out of meaningless wars. Pollyanna, that’s for sure.

  2. Interesting article, General Stewart. I groaned when I saw its length, but I made a point of reading all of it. Brief observations: 1.) in your comments on Vietnam, I sense once again the argument that “the troops weren’t allowed to fully prosecute the war.” What level of “mobilization” on the homefront would you have proposed, what sacrifices by the American citizenry? Would you have scrapped all of LBJ’s “Great Society” expenditures to pour those funds into buying more cluster bombs, more napalm, more Agent Orange?!? Further, why not imagine a general tendering his resignation over the shameful abominations committed against the civilian populations of Southeast Asia, acts which sullied this nation’s reputation on the global stage permanently, as I see it?; 2.) I fear the notion of a high-ranking US officer resigning over ANY “moral issue” is sheer fantasy in today’s world. The nation collectively–the electorate, the legislative and executive branches, above all the military–have descended into such venality that the only course is further decay of the empire. (A Supreme Court that throws out restraint on the purchase of politicians by billionaires is no salvation.) I don’t recall what wag said it originally, but it’s been observed that “A nation gets the government it deserves.” How did the electorate come to deserve the mess we’re now saddled with? By surrendering its right to demand and command accountability and responsibility from the elected and appointed officials running the government. I genuinely believe this nation has crossed the Rubicon. The republic is dead; long live the memory of the republic! Now bow down before Mammon, for that’s who is running the show.

    US Army 1967-1971
    Imprisoned for taking a moral stand on Vietnam!

    • Yes, a bit long, but tough to deal with a complex subject in any other way.

      In my opinion, the mobilization of which General Johnson speaks is that which comes with a Declaration of War. Remember that in WWII, the government controlled many aspects of American life. Absent a declaration, shopping is the rule: the 1% march and the rest of us tune out.

      I guess it validates MacArthur validating Plato, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

      • Though born a bit after WW II I am aware that USA instituted rationing here at home in support of that declared war effort. (And I understand that in Britain they didn’t lift rationing of some items until sometime in the 1950s!) So I guess the idea here is that the public would have felt “vested” in the War against Vietnam had we been forced to make sacrifices here at home? And thus no one would have noticed the war crimes being committed in our names? There wouldn’t have been a peep of protest? I have to reject such a notion out of hand.

    • Generals Schwarzkopf and Powell faced down Daddy Bush before the 1st Gulf War. Gen.Shinseki told Congress the truth before we invaded the ‘Graveyard of Empires’ but lost his nerve.

      I concur that the power to wage war rests with Congress. On December 28, 2014, the Executive branch declared the war over. The ramifications of that declaration on Congressional budget allocations has yet to announce itself. It should be one long scream, once they realize Halliburton’s contracts must be cancelled.

      As a Regular line officer who took early retirement after the 1st Oil war, I would like to suggest other factors which have corrupted our Officer Corps into 3d world stooges.

      Piss Testing. If you feel a need to piss test your Officers, why should their subordinates trust them? Why should they trust you?

      Sexual segregation. The rank makes the officer, not the reproductive equipment. If assault on a superior/subordinate is mitigated by the gender of the body wearing the rank, the chain of authority fails.

      Euro-Jesus. The dominion of Euro-Christianity in the service academies makes officers unfit to lead because they cannot be trusted to separate the personal and the professional. Insistence on carving out an official place for religious zealots destroys morale and discipline through favoritism and intimidation.

      Ignorance. We watched the Soviet Union die in Afghanistan. With a much shorter logistics tail. Just like the British Empire died in Afghanistan. In part because of insistence on Crusading for Christ. But any officer who contemplates invading Afghanistan should be stripped of rank and beaten soundly with Kipling’s ‘Soldiers Three.’

      Ignorance, Part II. Does the name ‘Clausewitz’ ring a bell? You do not contract out your logistics. Never, ever, ever. Logistics can make or break a campaign. Ask Napoleon. Patton. Pick your own example. Never put your troops at the mercy of a contractor.

      Vanity. I served 1976-94. The long, successful avoidance of war left many Senior officers unfulfilled. They longed for the sexy, Tom Cruise, Rambo, devil-may-care virility of their youth. So they turned to sartorial symbolism. Flight suits and BDUs flowered all over the Pentagon, as General Officers pranced about in combat boots. McPeak. You know I’m discussing you.

      Modern warfare demands a clear separation between the killing fields and the ‘safe’ areas. The psychological effect of dressing for battle should be clear and distinct. Forced wear of combat uniforms outside of combat blurs the demarcation. Once out of combat, troops wearing combat uniforms are bombarded by visual and sensory signals that they are still in danger. If you are dressed to kill and everyone around you is dressed to kill, you are in combat – even in Skokie. “If you dress like a warrior, you’ll think like a warrior.” Am I right?

      Vanity, Part II. Possessing the genetic qualifications to be a fighter pilot, Ranger, SEAL or any other combat specialty does not make you better equipped for command or promotion. The role of Flag Staff officers is to use every asset effectively, not just the Hollywood ones.

      History will not be kind.

      • Robyn–Fascinating comments! I see you left active service 20 years ago. Are you still in touch with members of the Officer Corps who are assuring you that “christian” fundamentalists still have excessive influence within the current military? I’m sure I would not be alone in wanting to hear more about this. Indeed, the ghosts of the Founding Fathers doubtless are already severely troubled!!

      • Robyn. Thank you for your attention and comments. History will not be kind. In the case of General Shinseki, he would have history’s praise had he backed his testimony with resignation. Instead, he waited to be terminated by men unfit to hold his coat.

      • Robyn..The only test we took was the “short arm” and we won a real war against three heavily armed nations in less than 31/2 years.
        We have been at these phoney imperial wars for over a decade and left behind failure, more enemies, and fewer friends. and respect. There is merit in letting congress decide as the Constitution lays out and doing the dirty only when a nation attacks not a handful of zealots. 9/11 was a criminal enterprise in large part underpinned by our friendly Saudi encouraged Wahbism. Your comments are right on. Thank you.

      • Thank you all for your kind words.
        After fleeing into retirement screaming, I returned to school at UH-Manoa and continued until they threw me out and took back my library card.
        They were nice enough to give me a piece of paper with my name and ‘Doctor of Philosophy’ on it, though. I miss that library card…..
        I ended up writing about how and why we remember Pearl Harbor. I started with ‘why do all the pictures look the same?’ and ended with 300+ pages on censorship, John Ford, Disney and 9/11.
        John Ford did it.
        His films were the first common, emotional history shared by almost every American. At least the ones who went to movies. His film, ‘December 7th’ was a propaganda piece, heavy on his trademark Passion Play, redemptive violence narrative. It was placed in the National Archives at his request.
        Where we swallowed it whole. Tora, Tora, Tora and the Disney film both repeated Ford’s narrative – right down to the visual cues and memes.
        The problem is that WWII was no more glamorous than our Oil wars. But people like my Dad, who was ETO Signal Intelligence, and the combat vets, could not be heard over the bugles and sentimental music. They were drowned out by the Madison Ave. machine. So they stopped talking.

        Post 9/11, we went full John Ford again, complete with religious frothing and redemptive violence.

        As I age, I’m beginning to be proud that on my watch 1976-94, we had no major war. The Cold War kept civilians out of it. Cool….

  3. Pingback: Why America Keeps Losing Its Wars | Ghosts of Tom Joad - Peter Van Buren

  4. Because of the draft, Americans cast explicit and strong votes against the Vietnam War. Had we not switched to a lottery, it would have had to wind down even sooner, because more and more Americans became aware their country was not threatened. As long as we have a volunteer military, we will have soldiers who will believe that when it comes to obeying orders of any sort their paycheck more important than their commitment to uphold a Constitution.

  5. Pingback: What’s the matter with us Americans? | Phil Ebersole's Blog

  6. Pingback: Why America Keeps Losing Its Wars | Dewayne-Net Archives

  7. Pingback: War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons Why America's Wars Persist | Informed Comment

  8. Pingback: TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons That America’s Wars Persist

  9. Pingback: Groundhog Day in America’s War on Terror | The Contrary Perspective

  10. Pingback: War Is the New Normal: 7 Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist -

  11. Pingback: Groundhog Day in the War on Terror | themcglynn.com

  12. Pingback: War Is the New Normal | SuddenlySlimmer

  13. Pingback: War Is the New Normal — LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives

  14. Pingback: War Is the New Normal | Omaha Sun Times

  15. Pingback: Nigerian News: War Is the New Normal | NigerianNation News

  16. Pingback: War Is the New Normal | AGReGate.info

  17. Pingback: War Is the New Normal | Political Ration

  18. Pingback: War Is the New Normal Seven Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist | Counter Information

  19. Pingback: Groundhog Day in the War on Terror | limitless life

  20. Pingback: War is the new normal: 7 reasons America can’t escape conflict « WORDVIRUS

  21. Pingback: William J. Astore: War Is the New Normal - Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics

  22. Pingback: War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist |  SHOAH

  23. Pingback: Why America Loses Wars While Destroying Peace | Bisbee Net News -

  24. Pingback: War is Normal — Feb. 5, 2015 | Middle East Crisis

  25. Pingback: War Is the New Normal » All 4 Peace Now

  26. Pingback: Sniper Chris Kyle Did Not Live Long Enough | The Contrary Perspective

  27. Pingback: Why America Keeps Losing Its Wars | Recent News

  28. America thinks its The Best. No1 In The World. So Superior every other nation must bow down before it…

    Yet it ignores the classic fundamental of War…Not Obey Thy Congress and Constitution but rather, Know Thine Enemy. America has never Known Its Enemy. It Blasted Japan to defeat in 1945 and thought it could the same to every other enemy… Wrong. It hasn’t won a single war (exc. GW1 against a Conventionally Inferior Opponent) since 1945. It knows Nothing of its Enemies and Very Little of its Allies. Its enemies by contrast Know Everything About It. They go to US Higher Education, Live in US culture and society. They know Americans, psychology, Strengths Weaknesses to a Tee. America knows them despite billions spent on Intel, not at all. The Opponents play Chess. They have religion, are willing to die. Number in millions, hundreds of millions. Americans do not play chess, have no religion, are not willing to die and have a tiny military. Watching GI Jane I’m struck by how pointless all the aggression and severity is. It doesn’t make Americans better soldiers than British or Russians r Chinese or Europeans or Israelis. It just makes Americans fantasise superiority. So what if your Seals spend 20hr days under extreme pressure? Doesn’t make them better soldiers than their opponents does it? That’s why the Opponents win and the US loses. Think about it…

    • Some valid points here. Because it is the wealthiest nation on Earth, the US’s military thinks it can win any conflict with superior firepower and high tech. As to “having religion,” well, we have quite a variety, don’t we? Some of the loudest proponents of waging bloody war loudly and proudly call themselves “Christians.” I believe Mr. Andrews is observing that the currently designated “enemy” overwhelmingly professes Islam as the only true religion (notwithstanding the Sunni-Shia schism), leading to a greater feeling of unity than in “Western” societies. But I’m afraid his comments don’t address the fundamental problem: the influence of the Military-Intel-Industrial-Congressional Complex has grown so out of proportion that “we,” as a society, have become perfectly comfortable with the notion of the Perpetual War On Terrorism. As Gene McDaniel wrote in his lyrics for “Compared to What?”–“Havin’ one doubt/They call it treason.” Personally, I have a million doubts and desire nothing less than to tear down this whole rotten edifice of a system.

      • Looking at it from their perspective, Americans are merely the latest group of Christians to invade and attempt to convert Muslims to their brother monotheistic cult. The Crusades, the British Empire, Russians and now America. Though the Russians were less dogmatic than Western Europeans, frankly, all White people look the same when they are invading your home.
        Because our military leadership persists in declaring their profound Christianity, no amount of propaganda or denial can convince an occupied country that their oppressors religion is irrelevant. Thanks Boykin!

        It is painfully obvious these NeoCrusaders have no grasp of what they are attempting. Their insistence on a purified and sanctified rank and file dooms them, even without a grasp of the fundamentals of waging a war. A quick review of highlights….

        Logistics. Logistics, logistics. NEVER contract out your logistics train. Doing so puts you at the mercy of contractors that you have no control over. Our military may be ‘mighty,’ but we can’t deploy to Walmart without Halliburton’s permission. And prayers. Lots of prayers.

        Organization and clear objectives. Our strategy has lurched between the siege mentality of the Green Zone and a naive dependence on ‘Special’ operations. Although typical of those nations bogged down in the ‘Graveyard of Empires’ the amount of blood and treasure expended demands a more coherent grasp of the uses and limitations of military might. If you must rely on ‘Special’ operations to prosecute war, you are losing. No matter what you read about WWII. Special Operations are a tool for creating weaknesses that can be exploited by regular forces. If you have no doctrine for using regular forces, being ‘special’ is not going to get the strategic goals met.

        Morale and discipline. You cannot divide the loyalties of your forces amongst the military, family and Jesus. It destroys the chain of command and unity. Interactive media compounds the issues by removing the time/distance barrier to competing loyalties.

        The old ‘dress like a warrior. think like a warrior’ creed of the 1990s is just silly. Unfortunately, fashionista desk officers have imposed their fetish on the rank and file. As I’ve remarked, uniforms are more than fashion statements. They are a critical tool for military welfare and discipline. The wearing of a combat uniform off the battlefield destroys the psychological sense of ‘safe/not safe.’

        The perversion of the official US flag is frightening. Our forces no longer wear the internationally recognized US flag. They wear an unauthorized variation with roots in the religious/sovereign citizen community. I’m not sure it even meets the criteria for Warsaw pact/Geneva convention identification of authorized combatants. If I were looking at an adversary, rather than my own country, I would tag that as a covert symbol of rebellion. Just sayin…..

        15 glorious years of religious war, fought as proxies for the Saudis.

        Highly recommend Emmanuel Todd’s ‘After the Empire: The Breakdown of American Order.

    • America has “millions of enemies”? Really? According to who — Fox Noise? And America is probably the most religious country in the first world. Not sure what being more “religious” has to do with winning current wars against Muslim terrorists who are willing to die for their God and beliefs.

  29. Pingback: Trump's Post-truth World Ends With The Death Of Democracy - LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives

  30. Pingback: What Does An ‘America-First’ Foreign Policy Actually Mean? – Liberty REDUX

  31. Pingback: What Does an “America-First” Foreign Policy Actually Mean? – Astute News

  32. Pingback: What Does An 'America-First' Foreign Policy Actually Mean? - Bonjournal-best Hub of News

  33. Pingback: America’s Wars as a Bad Novel - LA Progressive

  34. Pingback: American Exceptionalism Is Killing Planet Earth – Collabor8 News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s