0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
660 $

Why American Leaders Persist in Waging Losing Wars

Support SouthFront

Written by William J. Astore; Originally appeared at TomDispatch

As America enters the 18th year of its war in Afghanistan and its 16th in Iraq, the war on terror continues in Yemen, Syria, and parts of Africa, including Libya, Niger, and Somalia. Meanwhile, the Trump administration threatens yet more war, this time with Iran. (And given these last years, just how do you imagine that’s likely to turn out?) Honestly, isn’t it time Americans gave a little more thought to why their leaders persist in waging losing wars across significant parts of the planet? So consider the rest of this piece my attempt to do just that.

Why American Leaders Persist in Waging Losing Wars

A flag bearer holds the American flag as American forces take part in the opening ceremony of Flintlock, anti-terrorism training in Thies, Senegal, Monday, Feb. 8, 2016. Flintlock is annual military exercises that focuses on anti-terrorism and security training by American and European security forces to country’s taking part. (AP Photo/Jane Hahn)

Let’s face it: profits and power should be classified as perennial reasons why U.S. leaders persist in waging such conflicts. War may be a racket, as General Smedley Butler claimed long ago, but who cares these days since business is booming? And let’s add to such profits a few other all-American motivations. Start with the fact that, in some curious sense, war is in the American bloodstream. As former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges once put it, “War is a force that gives us meaning.” Historically, we Americans are a violent people who have invested much in a self-image of toughness now being displayed across the “global battlespace.” (Hence all the talk in this country not about our soldiers but about our “warriors.”) As the bumper stickers I see regularly where I live say: “God, guns, & guts made America free.” To make the world freer, why not export all three?

Add in, as well, the issue of political credibility. No president wants to appear weak and in the United States of the last many decades, pulling back from a war has been the definition of weakness. No one — certainly not Donald Trump — wants to be known as the president who “lost” Afghanistan or Iraq. As was true of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the Vietnam years, so in this century fear of electoral defeat has helped prolong the country’s hopeless wars. Generals, too, have their own fears of defeat, fears that drive them to escalate conflicts (call it the urge to surge) and even to advocate for the use of nuclear weapons, as General William Westmoreland did in 1968 during the Vietnam War.

Washington’s own deeply embedded illusions and deceptions also serve to generate and perpetuate its wars. Lauding our troops as “freedom fighters” for peace and prosperity, presidents like George W. Bush have waged a set of brutal wars in the name of spreading democracy and a better way of life. The trouble is: incessant war doesn’t spread democracy — though in the twenty-first century we’ve learned that it does spread terror groups — it kills it. At the same time, our leaders, military and civilian, have given us a false picture of the nature of the wars they’re fighting. They continue to present the U.S. military and its vaunted “smart” weaponry as a precision surgical instrument capable of targeting and destroying the cancer of terrorism, especially of the radical Islamic variety. Despite the hoopla about them, however, those precision instruments of war turn out to be blunt indeed, leading to the widespread killingof innocents, the massive displacement of people across America’s war zones, and floods of refugees who have, in turn, helped spark the rise of the populist right in lands otherwise still at peace.

Lurking behind the incessant warfare of this century is another belief, particularly ascendant in the Trump White House: that big militaries and expensive weaponry represent “investments” in a better future — as if the Pentagon were the Bank of America or Wall Street. Steroidal military spending continues to be sold as a key to creating jobs and maintaining America’s competitive edge, as if war were America’s primary business. (And perhaps it is!)

Those who facilitate enormous military budgets and frequent conflicts abroad still earn special praise here. Consider, for example, Senator John McCain’s rapturousfinal sendoff, including the way arms maker Lockheed Martin lauded him as an American hero supposedly tough and demanding when it came to military contractors. (And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.)

Put all of this together and what you’re likely to come up with is the American version of George Orwell’s famed formulation in his novel 1984: “war is peace.”

The War the Pentagon Knew How to Win

Twenty years ago, when I was a major on active duty in the U.S. Air Force, a major concern was the possible corroding of civil-military relations — in particular, a growing gap between the military and the civilians who were supposed to control them. I’m a clipper of newspaper articles and I saved some from that long-gone era. “Sharp divergence found in views of military and civilians,” reported the New York Times in September 1999. “Civilians, military seen growing apart,” noted the Washington Post a month later. Such pieces were picking up on trends already noted by distinguished military commentators like Thomas Ricks and Richard Kohn. In July 1997, for instance, Ricks had written an influential Atlantic article, “The Widening Gap between the Military and Society.” In 1999, Kohn gave a lecture at the Air Force Academy titled “The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today.”

A generation ago, such commentators worried that the all-volunteer military was becoming an increasingly conservative and partisan institution filled with generals and admirals contemptuous of civilians, notably then-President Bill Clinton. At the time, according to one study, 64% of military officers identified as Republicans, only 8% as Democrats and, when it came to the highest levels of command, that figure for Republicans was in the stratosphere, approaching 90%. Kohn quoted a West Point graduate as saying, “We’re in danger of developing our own in-house Soviet-style military, one in which if you’re not in ‘the party,’ you don’t get ahead.” In a similar fashion, 67% of military officers self-identified as politically conservative, only 4% as liberal.

In a 1998 article for the U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings, Ricks noted that “the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the military” had gone from “about 4 to 1 in 1976, which is about where I would expect a culturally conservative, hierarchical institution like the U.S. military to be, to 23 to 1 in 1996.” This “creeping politicization of the officer corps,” Ricks concluded, was creating a less professional military, one in the process of becoming “its own interest group.” That could lead, he cautioned, to an erosion of military effectiveness if officers were promoted based on their political leanings rather than their combat skills.

How has the civil-military relationship changed in the last two decades? Despite bending on social issues (gays in the military, women in more combat roles), today’s military is arguably neither more liberal nor less partisan than it was in the Clinton years. It certainly hasn’t returned to its citizen-soldier roots via a draft. Change, if it’s come, has been on the civilian side of the divide as Americans have grown both more militarized and more partisan (without any greater urge to sign up and serve). In this century, the civil-military divide of a generation ago has been bridged by endless celebrations of that military as “the best of us” (as Vice President Mike Pence recently put it).

Such expressions, now commonplace, of boundless faith in and thankfulness for the military are undoubtedly driven in part by guilt over neither serving, nor undoubtedly even truly caring. Typically, Pence didn’t serve and neither did Donald Trump (those pesky “heel spurs”). As retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich put it in 2007: “To assuage uneasy consciences, the many who do not serve [in the all-volunteer military] proclaim their high regard for the few who do. This has vaulted America’s fighting men and women to the top of the nation’s moral hierarchy. The character and charisma long ago associated with the pioneer or the small farmer — or carried in the 1960s by Dr. King and the civil-rights movement — has now come to rest upon the soldier.” This elevation of “our” troops as America’s moral heroes feeds a Pentagon imperative that seeks to isolate the military from criticism and its commanders from accountability for wars gone horribly wrong.

Paradoxically, Americans have become both too detached from their military and too deferential to it. We now love to applaud that military, which, the pollsters tell us, enjoys a significantly higher degree of trust and approval from the public than the presidency, Congress, the media, the Catholic church, or the Supreme Court. What that military needs, however, in this era of endless war is not loud cheers, but tough love.

As a retired military man, I do think our troops deserve a measure of esteem. There’s a selfless ethic to the military that should seem admirable in this age of selfies and selfishness. That said, the military does not deserve the deference of the present moment, nor the constant adulation it gets in endless ceremonies at any ballpark or sporting arena. Indeed, deference and adulation, the balm of military dictatorships, should be poison to the military of a democracy.

With U.S. forces endlessly fighting ill-begotten wars, whether in Vietnam in the 1960s or in Iraq and Afghanistan four decades later, it’s easy to lose sight of where the Pentagon continues to maintain a truly winning record: right here in the U.S.A. Today, whatever’s happening on the country’s distant battlefields, the idea that ever more inflated military spending is an investment in making America great again reigns supreme — as it has, with little interruption, since the 1980s and the era of President Ronald Reagan.

The military’s purpose should be, as Richard Kohn put it long ago, “to defend society, not to define it. The latter is militarism.” With that in mind, think of the way various retired military men lined up behind Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, including a classically unhinged performance by retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (he of the “lock her up” chants) for Trump at the Republican convention and a shout-out of a speech by retired General John Allen for Clinton at the Democratic one. America’s presidential candidates, it seemed, needed to be anointed by retired generals, setting a dangerous precedent for future civil-military relations.

A Letter From My Senator

A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America’s endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as “tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service.” OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn’t exactly the purpose of my note.

My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, “conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America’s national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists.” My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey “the law of armed conflict” and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an “open-ended mandate” for perpetual war.

Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, “I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox — including defense, diplomacy, and development — to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world.” The conclusion: “robust” diplomacy must be combined with a “strong” military.

Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you’ve probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?

Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed “military action should always be a last resort.” Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe — and this from a senator who’s been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.

I know what you’re thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can’t go on record criticizing the military. (She’s already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn’t support a “strong” U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?

And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn’t that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured — to steal a phrase from another losing war — the “hearts and minds” of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.

So, while it’s true that the military establishment failed to win those “hearts and minds” in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn’t fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets, it couldn’t be more overwhelming.

If you ask — and few Americans do these days — why this country’s losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there’s no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.

In their hearts, America’s self-professed warriors know they’re right. But the wrongs they’ve committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.

A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history, Astore is a TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is Bracing Views.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Douglas Houck

Interesting viewpoints which ring true. Thanks for the post.


The answer is simple to this stupid question – our politicians are illegally providing arms to all sides in these wars and laughing all the way to the bank while mind controlled Americans sit back and allow it all to happen. Genocidal maniacs in the US controlling these fake wars.

Zionism = EVIL

Let get real, the US is enslaved by Zionist warmongers.

John Whitehot

the article is long, but the short answer to the title is that the MIC needs wars to keep the money coming.

If the world became peaceful, the MIC would die out.

Zionism = EVIL

The MIC and Bilderbreg Jew corps, Wall Street and Jew media all fan wars and hatred.


Is the author of this article under the “Spell” of “War by Deception”

The Middle East is totally in CHAOS !

THAT is a WIN for Israel !

Order ( “New World”, style) will come out of that CHAOS but not for Arabs or Muslims, if their “leaders” don’t wake up


Sometime in next few months a US soldier that wasn’t even born on 09/11 will lose his life in Afghanistan. That’s how American “victory” in “War on Terror” looks like…My condolences to the family…


Price of a bundle of heroin has never been cheaper, CIA hasn’t had this big a share of the heroin market since the 60s and early 70s. Supplements the drop in crack and cocaine trade, if that’s not a victory…

R PLobo

The US public will learn nothing without massive casualties – only when wars come home does anyone wake up. As long as the anglo/zionists, who control the US keep the chaos out of the US, they have got it made.


I don’t agree that the military industrial complex is driving America’s wars. My view is that the primary cause is Jews, not the MIC. And until America is dejudified, or self destructs, that’s unlikely to change. The entire Jew supremacist credo is built upon war, conquest, and subjugation. Judaism should be extinguished on our planet to create a better future for humanity. You only need to look at where 90% of the planet’s Jews congregate, and what their activities consist of. To see where the problem is.


comment image

– Jewish population by country –



– Who Controls America? –

“When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America

Who Controls the Economy?
Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 2)
Who Controls Wall Street? (Part 1)
Who Controls Goldman Sachs?
Who Controls American International Group?
Who Controls the Treasury Department?
Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 1)
Who Controls the Federal Reserve System? (Part 2)
Mass Media
Who Controls Big Media?
Who Controls Hollywood?
Who Controls Television?
Who Controls Music?
Who Controls Radio?
Who Controls Advertising?
Who Controls the News? (Part 1)
Who Controls the News? (Part 2)
Who Controls the White House?
Who Controls the Senate?
Who Controls the Congress?
Who Controls the Supreme Court?
Who Controls the State Department?
Who Controls the Justice Department?
Who Controls the Defense Department?
Who Controls the Treasury Department?
Social Engineering
Who Controls the Ivy League?
Who Controls the Think Tanks?
Who Controls Professional Sports?
Who Controls the Anti-Defamation League?
Who Controls the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Who Controls the American Civil Liberties Union?
Who is Behind Gun Control?
Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax?
“New World Order”
Who Controls the Group of Thirty?
Who Controls the Bilderberg Group?
Who Controls the Trilateral Commission?
Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 1)
Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (Part 2)”



hm. in buenos aires live more juice than in whole argentina???

John Whitehot

go screw yourself potcracker.


how wise are you, homo erectus!

John Whitehot



fuck your mother on her coffin!


“94% say that if Jewish state “no longer existed tomorrow,” it would be a “tragedy.””



The other 6% are mostly orthodox who are the biggest baby rapers of them all. Jew pedophile mass rape cultists rape 1,000 children every week week with their vile blood sucking “Jewish circumcision” ritual.

Judaism should be classified as a criminal organization and outlawed. The synagogues and yeshivas should be closed and demolished. Numerous cults have been outlawed for far less than what the Jews are guilty of.


You’re a disgusting piece of pedophile mass rape cult supporting filth.


Thank you, I fully agree with you but it’s no use cap’n, I tried a few times before to explain to @StarTraveler1:disqus why Jews and Zionists are different, to no avail.
I haven’t receive from him a response like the one he gave you “yet”. I felt sorry to read that.
This kind of behaviour helps Zionism much more than harming it because it fuels their propaganda machine, with the illusion of fighting it.


So what’s your point, that raping children, infecting them with venereal disease, brain damaging and murdering them means that they’re the good Jews and only Zionists are the bad Jews?


There’s the difference. What you call “felony statutory raping children” I call “a disgusting tradition for circumcision”. I understand the person who does it has no intention to enjoy sexually from cutting a piece of skin, a lot of times it’s the father who does the circumcision ritual.

I call it rape when it is rape, intention has a big place in it and I think swinging from gallows is a good exercise for anybody who performs real sexual acts on children, forcefully or not, Jew, Shi’a or otherwise.

Zionists’ ledgers is full bloody red. They were and are murdering unarmed women in children who are not even on the occupied lands, destroying their towns, villages, homes, orchards, world heritage, causing countless deadly conflicts with a lot of real victims. Half the world is burning in the fire of their misdeeds.

They do a lot of bad things to expos, what I wrote is but a fraction of horrors we are facing thanks to them but if you think you are helping, newsflash, it’s exactly what they need to paint all anti-Zionists as deranged and haters who twist little facts to further their own agenda, hating a whole group of people for their ethnicity or religion without exception. Thanks a lot.

And finally, I know a “strawman” when I see one. Do not attempt to twist my own words to make an argument for yourself. I think I’m done unless I see an important message worthy of reply or discussion


Look moron, what is it about if a non Jew commits the same crime that they go to the gallows that you don’t understand? Look up the definition of oral copulation with a minor, translate it to English, and if it’s anything like the American definition, it’s the end of the debate. Any contact of an adult’s mouth sucking a baby’s penis is felony statutory oral copulation with a minor. And a range of other criminal violations like endangering the welfare of a child.

Empire's Frontiers

This is the kind of humor this place can use.



LOL. I’m the extremist? You can’t be serious. You’re the one shilling for an evil cult that pedophile rapes 1,000 children every week, infects them with venereal disease, brain damages and murders them. While non Jews are given long sentences, sent to the gas chambers and crematoriums for the same crimes. Go count your shekels you disgusting degenerate.

These perverts belong in jail.
comment image
comment image

John Whitehot

sometimes he sounds like those zionist propagandists that try to incite hate against jews in general, so to unite them against their enemies (those of the zionists, not the jews in general) and to be able to call others “nazis” and other things.

Zionism = EVIL

Barley 14 million so-called “Jew” scum but 100% evil. There are not even a million real Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews in the entire world. When the Zionists aka fake ghetto dwellers from eastern Europe occupied Palestine in 1948, there were less than 2,000 Sephardic Arab Jews in Palestine. The rest of ghetto scum came via courtesy of western tax payers and Hollywood fake narrative post 1948.


Before WW2 the estimates that I’ve seen are the 92% of Jews were European AshkeNAZIs.

H Eccles

Quote.. ‘.. capable of targeting and destroying the cancer of terrorism, especially of the radical Islamic variety.

Sure.. but which of these ‘radical Islamic variety’ type has not been created by western intelligence agencies? So far their purpose has been to give the west and excuse to turn up in a ME country that Israel doesn’t like and bomb it to smitherenes.


Their quality of living is directly dependent on wars. So wars go on against defenseless countries and US doesn’t have to win wars.


I belive that in the end, the US does not really care whether it loses or wins a war. What they want, above all, is to keep the oven burning. As long as profits keep coming in in the hundreds of billions, everything else is pathetically cheap, especially lives, including their own cirizens’.

Zionism = EVIL

It is simple AmeriKKKans are loudmouth brainwashed morons enslaved by Zionist warmongers. As long as Zionists occupy Palestine and Bilderberg Jew corporations create havoc in the western world, the US idiots will keep on fanning losing wars as use the made in China flag waving trailer trash as cannon fodder.


“Why American Leaders Persist in Waging Losing Wars”


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x