Why is it that the US military has never won a war that lasted longer than 6+ years?

Question

And how long has the US military been fighting in Iraq? I think it's been a little over 6 years?

Is it because they aren't trained well enough in guerrilla warfare/counter insurgency? And if it's not that then what is it?

Answer 1

Forces that are made up of citizen solders generally don't do well in long wars. Democracies tend to fight short intense wars. There citizens have better things to do with their time and want to come home. It is the autocratic states that tend to have legions.
This Kind of War by T. R. Fehrenbach has an excellent discussion of this as it affected Korea.

Answer 2

I believe operation Iraqi freedom began 20 March 2003, so no we have not been there anywhere near "6+" years.

We are trained very well in counter insurgency, but as was stated prior, fighting a war without completely obliterating the enemy in their own environment and destroying the things they need to function (supply chains, contacts, etc.) is very difficult. Our military is not a police force so this war could last for some time. Unless we are able to rid Iraq of ‘anti-coalition forces’ (or whatever they call them) we will have to keep the peace and support ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) until we can get rid of the enemy to the point that they can no longer function.
I will end this here because I am not sufficiently versed in counter insurgency training and tactics to continue further.

Answer 3

When a war lasts a long time, it always tilts the advantage towards the side who is on their own territory (unless there is a great amount of damage to their country). Since the US hasnt fought a war on their own soil since the revolution (which lasted more than 6 years and we won, but we had homefield advantage) we have always been fighting half way around the world. There is one other factor as well. In the wars that we have spent more than 6 years, we were not fighting total war which gives guerilla warfare a good opportunity to resist. It is not a good idea to fight a war against a country when we are trying to minimalize casualties on both sides. It shows weakness and makes people mad. Some old greek guy (i dont remeber) once said that causing a small injury is worse than a big one because if one is severly hurt, they cant fight back. I think this is true with the way we fight wars. The only way to defeat guerillas is to make peace with them, or destroy everything they need to operate, which involves mass destruction or an oppressive government (both of which would result in the US losing the moral high ground of the conflict). It is not good to go to war for political reasons. It must either be to defend yourself or to destroy another country or else war doesnt work. (not that im saying destruction of countries is a good thing) All the wars that the US has won have been fought using total war. This style of fighting gives us our largest advantage since we are the worlds strongest nation. However, once we are interested in protecting the country that we are fighting against, our style of war doesnt work and theres nothing we can do about it. We cant even stop violent crime Washington D.C., so how are we supposed to stop something similar and more widespread in a strange city halfway around the globe.

Answer 4

Its because the American people can't stomach it long enough.The people wanted us to invade Iraq.But they always start b**ching when it goes on longer than a week.In 1968 in Vietnam,after the tet offensive there was almost no Vietcong left to fight us.But what happened next? The hippie's started protesting,which interfered with everything.The NVA then started doing things like burning down a village and then telling the American media that they were using it as a hospital until it was napalmed by U.S. war planes.They knew it would stir up a big mess in the U.S. If the people would just shut up,then our troops would be home sooner which means less of them would die.

Answer 5

it is not the military.it is our civilian leaders. both sides of the house.and the people in the white house.when you have a target to take out and have to call and get permission all the way back in wash/dc and back to you the target is long gone. that was Vietnam. and what I been told is also happening in Iraq now. If the military is given a mission. and let the generals do what they have to do. and keep reporters the hell out of the way. it would not take 6 years.so don't blame to military they know what they are doing.it's thees outher as* holes trying to run the battle from 1000's of miles away.

Answer 6

Because in previous wars there were a lot less restrictions. Watch the documentaries on the World Wars. You'll see a lot of bombing and intense fighting between large groups.
The more recent (so-called) wars have all started as "police actions", or us helping another country. There are all sorts of restrictions. Before, everyone was involved in a war, including and especially the civilians. Today, you can't hit a civilian without having to pay his family damages. In previous wars, you blasted the enemy and his hiding spots. Today, the enemy hides behind women and children you can't shoot.

Answer 7

i would be more than happy to answer your question if it were possible, how ever the US military has never lost a war. if however you wish to classify the Viet Nam war as a loss you would be incorrect to blame the military for that loss it was the politicos in Washington,and the Pentagon who lost it. so when the US military loses a war that last longer than 6 years i will answer that question, because then we will have info to base a answer on.