VinceC, thanks for your insight. There certainly have been times when the U.S. military had mixed results and that is one of the things I tried to articulate with this post, while asking the question: what are the consequences of not achieving victory? Concur completely that destructive force is only part of a strategy, but it is probably the one aspect of strategy that most underpins the others. Ultimately, the capacity to destroy external threats is what makes civilization and national survival even possible (I did not mean to destroy, but the capacity to destroy). That is not to say that destructive force alone leads to success--it doesn't--but having the capacity to use it and decisively use it when necessary completely changes a nation's standing in the world. Case in point: the Soviet Union.

The Soviets weren't a particularly strong economic power or moral authority; western nations paid attention to them because they were aggressive and feared. Russia's influence declined considerably after the break-up of the Soviet Union as its military might diminished. This led to independence for Eastern Europe as these countries knew they no longer had to fear Soviet coercion. The world is paying more attention to Russia now that it has announced plans to develop new technology and weapons systems and showcased a willingness to exert aggression, i.e. harassment and suspected assassination of dissidents and political enemies, strong arming neighbors by withholding gas and oil, and so on.

If North Korea did not, apparently, possess a few nuclear weapons with the potential capacity to create more and have a perceived willingness to use/share them under the right circumstances, no one would be nearly as concerned about them as if it possessed a purely conventional army. And if North Korea did not have a formidable conventional army either, no one would care much for what it said or did at all. Had we defeated the North Korean communists 55 years ago, certainly no one would be worried about them now.

The reason anyone even pays attention to Islamic terrorists is because they commit extreme acts of violence and threaten to commit more if they do not get what they want. When a nation loses credibility in the area of using influence and force (in all its forms—the “many means” to compel an adversary that you mention) to achieve national objectives and protect national interests, those who have no qualms about using force against that nation or its interests will fight it. We must ask ourselves what the result of America's mixed military success and lack of resolve means to our enemies, but also to our allies. Your brief summary of American military history brings up some very valid points; perhaps U.S. success as a result of WWII was so dramatic and unprecedented that it caused some to forget that maybe the U.S. has not historically had too many clear-cut victories. Maybe it also speaks well of the U.S. in that it could be or could have been much more coercive in its use of power (belligerent), but has historically chosen not to do so.

Who knows whether events leading to a national effort on the order of WWII will ever again coalesce. It depends a lot, I think, on how strong we allow our enemies to become and what they decide to do to us and our allies when they possess a certain level of political, military, and economic strength. Our enemies are very clear on what they want to do and it is not in our best interests. If they were strong enough and if the U.S. and its allies were weak enough, I think we have to take them at their word and believe they would try to kill, subjugate, and conquer as much of the West as possible. I know you said that great powers must often fight different-sized conflicts of varying import and can accept varying outcomes. This is the case, but I am not so sure this is a good thing or the right thing over the long term. If the U.S. and its allies had a track record of consistent, decisive victory in conflicts large and small, its enemies or potential enemies would not be as bold in challenging them. Isn’t that a good thing for the United States?

Vince, what do you think the current and future consequences are for America with its mixed history of success in conflict? For its allies? How do you think America’s enemies perceive this and how do you think they will exploit it?