The Military Failure of the United States of America. Why?
I'm always smiling I didn't say it bother or affected me :)
Just stating the facts.
Maybe because you can't solve most conflicts with military power and force.
I am convinced that you can't get rid of IS and solve the conflict in Syria and Iraq with bombings and air raids.
With any civilian casualty, with every innocent child being killed by air attacks new terrorists are created.
I believe most importantly it should be cared for that IS can get no more financial means, that they can't sell their oil, that they can't get more arms. Then the Iraki government should be formed by Sunni and Shia groups, both being equally and all respected. The IS then might be like fish in a pond where their water will dry.
Simon: To occupy and transform a country and introduce your culture and values you need to be there for a long time so a generation grows up accepting them as the nom. That means doing all the boring stuff - run bureaucracies and infrastructure.
That's the lesson history teaches us, so I agree with that conclusion. When Alexander the Great conquered the Iranian (Persian) Achaemenid Empire, Hellenism (Greek influence) gradually became the norm, albeit with local characterisitics as in hellenised Bactria (Afghanistan) and hellenised Judaism in Palestine.
in contrast the Mongolian empire did not endure long enough to have a great and lasting influence, except possibly in some regions now part of modern Russia.
United States never excelled on diplomatic front and this was already inherited in the foundation of the nation. The only alliance it had was France, from 1783 only to break it one-sided by Adams in December of 1800, because he hated French. Until 1940, USA enforced isolationist policy and was never part of any coalition or military alliances until WWII. The victory of WWII (which was a coalition victory), created an aura of invincibility and belief of supremacy of its values everywhere. Very a few in leadership and population alike are aware that winning a war and holding on conquered territory are two totally different issues. Romans learned it the hard way.
Roman army was the most superior fighting force unmatched by size until French Grande Armée in 1794. Romans also believed that they were invincible, superior, and advanced than any country they marched on. However, they failed with this strategy among Germanic barbarians and Persians. While both entities inflicted painful defeat to Roman army, Romans won most of the wars with them. The marched as far to Susa in Iran and sacked capitol of Persia several times. They crossed over Rhine and Danube, burned everything on sight, but never managed to create a stable Roman rule.
Romans did not understand why Germanic nations do not want to be liberated by them. They invited children and relatives of the ruling elite, dressed the warriors' wives in silk and jewelry, showed them wonders of the Roman civilizations, yet these Germans were stubborn, and were not impressed. Even in Tacitus misunderstood the opinion of the population north of Danube, that they just do not want to be liberated and wanted to live a life as they liked. USA after 1945 does exact the same mistake as Romans. People in very impoverished corners of the world just do not care much about the cultural and political system of USA. They can give a rat about it. In 2003-2005 newspapers were full of encouragement how Americans will build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how everything will work from the point onward. None of the expectation have worked and will never work. It is difficult to force population to accept a cultural and political system they do not see it as their own.
Again, because West Germany became a democracy, many on the leadership from DEM and GOP things that this will be applicable everywhere. From the modern history of 1945, all the wars were won, but they were political failure. Because these wars did not create a collective scar (unlike Civil War or WWII), these failures are subsequently forgotten in following generations, and cycle is repeated elsewhere.
Alexander did not create new empire, he just conquer it from Persia. What he wanted was to unify both culture, Hellenistic and Persian. He did not consider Persians inferior, but showed a deep admiration for the civilization. He also implemented policy of mutual interbreeding, where he forced members of his staff and armed forces to marry local women and created a blend of new class from both. This worked in Afghanistan. It was much harder for next generation to oppose Greek ideals when daddy was Greek. Romans did similar tactics on conquered, but not hostile tribes.
Mongol empire was build on opposite principles than Hellenistic empire. It was based on mass slaughter and population extermination. Mongols did not care about wealth, art, culture, business, and had very little need for urban population among nomads. Grandson of Genghis said that his grandfather could conquer the world, but he did not know a single day how to rule it. Mongol conquests were pretty much erased after 100 years. Because most of the genes were destroyed, the surviving population did not had much chance to restore to their previous greatness. One of the major regression of Orthodox Europe, Middle East, Central Asia, and Far East after 1250 in comparison to Western Europe can be traced to Mongol Empire. Western Europe became the wealthiest and technologically the most advanced region in the world for next 500 years.
Another problem is that the US military is geared up to fight Russia or China
good luck with that. remember Corea
There is a lot of great writing on this subject (by social critics). Check out Chris Hedges, esp "War is a force that gives us meaning". Also, Morris Berman, Noam Chomsky ect. Your paper might get pretty thick.
The USA has never had to slug it out with an equal opponent, and I hope they will never have to. In that case it would be a bloodbath for all.