Successful American Wars?

SloanerF1

I feel that many of the wars that the Americans have involved themselves in as so-called "policeman of the world" have been failures. In fact, the only wars in they have been truly successful are those in which they had a large number of strong allies, where the action was not uni- or bi-lateral. Perhaps this is a lesson that George W. Bush should take on board...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SloanerF1

It looks popular enough to me!

mike65

Thier most succesful was the first ie the War of Independance!

The Cold War was also succesful but that maybe seen as something different...

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by daveirl
Well since America survived all the wars weren't they in part sucessful.

Yes, but they and we must get past that definition of success. Until September 11, many Americans thought they were invincible in their own country. The principle seemed to be that they could involve themselves in as many international wars as they liked and remove as many "unfriendly" regimes as they liked because they knew that the people at home would be safe. This principle is at the root of the planned war in Iraq.

The success of a war should be defined as the acheivement of an objective that is supported by the majority of the international community with minimal casualties on all sides. Therefore, few wars can fully be successful.

TomF

Let's have a look, as a matter of simple justice, at the wars other countries have fought. Although the United States of America is one of the oldest continuous governments in the world, it is hard to pin a "win" or a "loss" on these other younger, less-experienced nations because they haven't been around too long in their present forms.

England: Falkland Islands. A win, although losses of men and ship(s?) hurt. Anyway, Argentina lost decisively.
Northern Ireland. Too early to call because this is basically the war that has been raging since 1170 or so, and if I remember correctly, the British Army was originally formed to quell disturbances in Ireland. (Heh, heh.)
Ireland. I'd say England lost this one.
World War I. England lost a generation of young men, so if it was a victory, it was a Pyrrhic one.
World War II. England was on the way down the drain and only survived this war because of cross-Atlantic allies. The war marked the end of England as a world power.

Russia: The Cold War. A definite loss.
Afghanistan. A definite loss.
World War II. A win with lots of territory engulfed in the process, but another Pyrrhic victory with a generation dead.
World War I. I think Russia made a treaty with Germany & Co. because the Revolution of 1917 had ended any Russian campaigning. Probably a loss.

France: Algeria. A loss.
Viet-Nam. A loss.
World War II. Surrendered and was occupied. A loss.
World War I. Nearly lost but saved by trans-Atlantic allies, and then demanded such revenge against the Central Powers that World War II was inevitable.
War of 1871. A loss. Paris occupied.
Napoleonic Wars. Eventually a loss, but not too bad up until the invasion of Russia (maybe Russia was a winner in that war).
French & Indian War in North America. A loss.

Germany: World War II. A loss.
World War I. A loss.
War of 1871. A win.
Before then there were so many duchys and principalities that there didn't really seem to be a "Germany".

Manach

I reckon the war of 1812 a draw.
Voted against Vietnam obviously, and the Kosova Conflict was a "Police Operation".
America has in the past engaged in conflict for near-alturistic reasons but has had a fair share of land grabs
eg, Indian Wars, 1812, Mexican War of 1845-46, The 1898 Spanish War etc.
Finally, the person who killed most Americans ever is a national hero ... Robert E. Lee.

Hobbes

How could anyone possibly say the Afganistan war was successful? They lost against the Russians, and now that they are in Afganistan the country has pretty reverted back to what it was pre-911.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Hobbes
How could anyone possibly say the Afganistan war was successful?

It was unsuccessful because the Americans fooled us into thinking their objective was finding Osama bin Laden and his terror network. They failed in their objective, and although they decided that they might as well indulge in a bit of "regime change" while they were there, this does not make the war successful. In addition, the Allies made a series of blunders, such as bombing a Red Cross centre and blowing up a wedding party.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes
How could anyone possibly say the Afganistan war was successful? They lost against the Russians, and now that they are in Afganistan the country has pretty reverted back to what it was pre-911.

The war was successful because they got rid of the Taliban and destroyed al-Qaeda's training camps. Afghanistan is not perfect but at least it is now on the road to being a functioning democracy.

And it's all thanks to the greatest democracy on earth.

ykt0di9url7bc3

War doesnt determine who wins or loses, War determines who is left....

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The war was successful because they got rid of the Taliban and destroyed al-Qaeda's training camps. Afghanistan is not perfect but at least it is now on the road to being a functioning democracy.

And it's all thanks to the greatest democracy on earth.

Strange because if you pay attention to the news you would know that...

- AQ attacks still happen in the country and the AQ are still there.

- The Northern Alliance is just as bad as the Taliban were.

- Human rights abuses that happened while the Taliban were in power still happen on a daily basis. Women are refused schooling and musicians are dragged away and beaten.

Oh and Afganistan isn't a democracy, it's a puppet dictator put in by the US who has no real power as over 90% of the country is still controlled by warlords who last time I checked aren't voted in.

So spare me the proproganda speel.

Biffa Bacon

Al-Qaeda has not been totally eradicated from Afghanistan no more than the Nazis were totally eradicated from Germany after WW2. But any attacks they launch are easily put down by US and Afghan forces. The fact remains that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were utterly routed by the US military.

As I said, Afghanistan is not perfect, but it could hardly be expected to be after twenty years of conflict. The government headed by Hamid Karzai is a transitional government before a fully democratic constitution takes effect in 2004.

Human rights abuses still occur, but can anyone, hand on heart, say they would prefer to live in Afghanistan under the Taliban than under the transitional authority?

Face facts, the Afghan war was one of the most noble and just wars fought in human history.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Face facts, the Afghan war was one of the most noble and just wars fought in human history.

It was cetainly one of the most opportunistic and ill-planned wars fought in human history.

Éomer of Rohan

I am going to live up to true history-obsessed socialist tradition and first begin by quoting Marx - "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." Using this I am going to define 'success' and 'failure' in ways that have only been touched on by one person so far.

Let us look to the Age of Imperialism. Wars were fought often between the grand European powers of Prussia, France, Great Britain, Russia, Austria - Hungary and Ottoman Turkey. Spain was by this stage practically a satellite of France. These wars involved colonial wars in India, in the Americas and in the Australasian Archipelago - these being the best documented cases of such wars. There were also large scale European actions - the revolutionary war waged by Republican and later Napoleonic France, Germany/Prussian wars of independence/unification/liberation depending on your view of history and the wars in Spain between Portugal, France and Britain. My knowledge of these wars is good but I daresay few others will know the exact details of these wars - the reason being every single one was a failure for all concerned since these wars were waged in the interest of naked materialism and greed on either on part or the other. Self defence is discounted not as the war itself usually results from both territories coveting a particular territory leading to the friction in the first place. Millions of innocent people spurred on by jingoism, the need of a good career (ie one laden with spoils meaning the army or navy), the option between gaol and the army or navy and/or belief in 'the national ideal' (something I consider foolish as did many other people once upon a time and upon which I will enlarge upon later) died as a result of these wars. Thus they were failures as they killed people for no reason other than geo-political advantage and xenophobia.

America became a 'global power' in the mid 1800's when she finally completed her expansion and the borders of the USA were roughly what they are now. She even had a few overseas territories not to mention free reign in South America following the demise of Spanish and Prtuguese power and the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine. Her first real war as a nation was indeed the American civil war (though American warships were present during all three opium wars in the far east and during the Spanish and Portuguese retreat from empire). Did either side win this war? Ostensibly this war was about slavery and its abolition. In reality it was about the bounds of power of the US central (federal) government which many in the southern states resented not simply because of the attempted abolition of slavery but because of taxation as well not to mention the growing cultural gulf. The Union militarily defeated the Confederate Armies but on both sides at battles like Bull Run and Vicksburg where there were furiously contested battles the casualties included almost the entire army that was thrown into battle due to the new machine guns employed. This war failed to abolish slavery - it simply gave it a new name; racism. It murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent working men on both sides for no real benefit since as we are well aware, a hundred years afterwards, Martin Luther King was growing up watching the oppression of his own colour of people. Can anyone call the mass slaughter of the US Civil War a victory?

The next real war was WWI in which the US intervened, as it swore never to do, in European affairs (giving rise to the myth that the US saved Western Europe's ass). If anyone tells me the
further mass slaughter of Verdun, Ypres, the Somme, Tannenberg et cetera, not to mention the near starvation of the German working class, the innocent french deaths, the slaughter of civilians by both sides on the Russian front, the collapse of central government in Turkey which precipitated an economic collapse in the middle east constitute a victory then they are ignorant of history and lack rudimentary intelligence with regard to appreciating the value of human lives.

Then we come to WWII, the first true war of idealism as I once heard it called by AJP Taylor. America lost something like 400,000 servicemen and little or no civilians other than maritime personnel.
People call this a success? What about the German civilians - non Nazi civilians, most of them - who died in the firebombing of Dresen or the mass bombing of Cologne, Berlin etc??? What about the 30 million Soviet deaths? The UK/Commonwealth/Allied deaths? All to do a job that capitalism prevented one group of people from doing? Yes. Capitalism without doubt caused the deaths of more people than are alive in Ireland today - many many more people. How you ask? Look to German history when the Weimar Republic was new and there was a Freikorp take over in Berlin (Extreme Right Wing) - the German Labour Movement brought the entire system to a halt and after a hundred hours, this government, something akin to the Nazis fled to Sweden!! It was capitalism that broke the labour movement in Germany - the Dawes plan for Germany's economic revival was withdrawn by the US and the German economy collapsed under the strain of being deprived of the Ruhr industrial area by France (for French economic gains) and the weight of reparations payments. This in turn brought ruin on the lives of millions of German people unemployed - 6million!!! - and the trade unions disintegrated leaving no real organised opposition to the Nazi propaganda that followed about Brot, Arbeit and Leibensraum and such rubbish. This was caused by a capitalist desire to extract from Germany all the money available!!! What value was the money to the French or British governments? Would it bring back the war dead from WWI? Would money in anyway compensate for their loss? Of course not. In conclusion the second world war was a war caused almost exclusively by capitalism and the 'high minded' approach by US or UK governments is absolutely secondary when we see that a cohesive German labour movement as existed pre 1923 and pre 1929 could have halted the Nazis and their subsequent activities.

Let us not forget the other part of WWII - the Pacific War which was in effect a grandiose colonial war on a scale never seen in that region. Japan wanted to carve a colonial empire; the US felt threatened by this. The UK felt threatened by this. France, Holland, China and the Commonwealth did not want their little goldmine discovered by the 'nips' (Nipponese for those who wish to know) to coin such a racist term. Since the 1600's, Britain and France and Spain and Holland and Portugal had been exploiting all the could from the Pacific region and by C20th, this had become the US (who now had colonial interests in the Philippines and other islands with strong economic interests in China), the UK and France. Again this wasn't some highminded affair. What government concerned with human rights would drop two nuclear bombs on two defenceless cities when all they had to do was accept a conditional surrender from Japan - but oh no the US and UK wanted unconditional surrender so there would be no threat to the economic interests of either nation in that region - something further substantiated by the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 when the US decided that it was better to fight (under UN auspices, the Security Coucil of which consisted of France the US and UK as the only permanent members, showing what a farce it was) to secure a base in Korea than to allow the Communists to take over! And before we get a cry about who it was in defence of South Korean human rights, the US, persuaded by General MacArthur, seriously considered the option of a massive nuclear bombardment of ALL of Korea that was not under allied control (at that time this was practically everything above Pusan) - how in hells name the death of EVERY Korean (not to mention the collateral deaths of Chinese, Americans, Japanese, British and Russians) helps their human rights, I will never know. Anyone care to tell me that these wars were succesful because I will happily shoot you down??

We could then look to the small wars supplied by America in the African subcontinent or even the attempted invasion of Cuba, a nation just having undergone a populist revolt from the repugnantly corrupt Batistan regime but those were dirty little wars in which many people died for no reason other than the paranoid anti populist (not necessarily anticommunist) nature of the US administrations between Korea and Vietnam but I will skip to what might be called the big Cahuna - Vietnam itself. 2 million innocent civilians died in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during that war and the US even failed militarily to achieve its objective of preventing the spread of communism in a hopelessly backward little country. Success? I doubt it.

Skip forward a decade to the Iraq/Iran war, a dirty little war that few people remember (much to the relief I am sure of all the Americans screaming for bloody vengeance on Iraq at present). Ask this question? Did America supply Iraq with weapons and financial aid? Yes. They paid Iraq to kill people from a nation considered 'hostile' but which was ultimately a small fish beside the US shark. Oh and do we wonder where the Iraqi's got the technical know how from some of their chemical weapons? No because we know they came from America!!! Once again a complete success if you are only interested in body count but in reality this war destroyed the lives of thousands of people,. forced to fell their homes lest they be caught in a firefight for no tangible gain for either side.

....please wait - to be continued.....

Éomer of Rohan

The Gulf War is right next door to this war and when we look at the Gulf War we see yet another war caused by capitalism - if the US had truly been interested in the so called rights of man then they would not be supporting Israel, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Kuwait - but the reality is they did and do and when they 'won' the Gulf War at the head of the international coalition they went and installed the Kuwaiti dictators - wasn't that nice?! The Gulf War was undisputedly over the question of oil and the need of the rest of the world for said oil. Ergo we have thirteen years of pointless sanctions (who were they trying to protect using sanctions? Their oil supplies) and military strikes every so often to highlight the dominance of the US military in the area (5th and 6th fleets to be precise) - did these strikes make a dent against Saddam's military? Yes. Does it matter since he was doing nothing the US hasn't done? Yes. Why? Because it was someone other than the US doing it.

The we look to the 'war' in Afghanistan and the deaths by bombing of approximately 10,000 civilians all because of America's history - the harm she has inflicted on the world and on Arabs, especially by the funding of Israel which used the money to buy Lance nuclear weapons and the latest in US military hardare, was being repaid by men deemed terrorists or freedom fighters depending on your view. Did America militarily achieve her aims? NO - there is still a US force in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban regime suppressed. Did she find Bin Laden which George W. Bush publicly stated was the goal? No. Did many innocent people die? Yes. Anyone notice a recurring theme?

The new war in Iraq....well it hasn't happened yet but does anyone care to postulate what will happen regardless of UN or non UN backed aggression? If you had any heart and intelligence you answered that with "thousands of civilians will die because of some neo colonialist power and the dependence of her economy, her way of life, on the very thing that is killing it." I apologise for the nature of that polemic but I think so many people forget the nature of war and ultimately fail to see that there is no point in war unless it is for a better world - and ultimately there has never been a war for a better world without some other motive behind it (and I will reiterate this point, Congress in the US DID NOT VOTE FOR A WAR AGAINST NAZI GERMANY - it took Hitler to declare war to force the Americans into the war). To conclude in one line, no war in human history, whether american or otherwise (and I could have extended my rant back to 600BC if anyone had pushed me) has ever been successful.

*is exhausted by that lol*

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Al-Qaeda has not been totally eradicated from Afghanistan no more than the Nazis were totally eradicated from Germany after WW2. But any attacks they launch are easily put down by US and Afghan forces. The fact remains that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were utterly routed by the US military.

You know that if you examine the Russian campaign in Afghanistan, you will also find that they steamrollered in there, and quickly secured the seat of power.

Within the first year, it looked like there was token resistance, but that the main opposition had been routed.

Then over the following 9 years, how many Russians and Afghani's were killed in the incessant warring? How much control the the Russians exert over the nation? What was the final outcome?

The simple truth is that after the Taliban were deposed, we were told the war was over. Then we were told the war wasnt really over, but it was only an easy mop-up operation. Now, a year on, and they're still out there, controlling the capital and a tiny region around it, getting hit by rocket attacks on a regular basis (fatal or not doesnt stop the fact that someone has rockets can gets that close with them), and have SFA control over the warlords controlling the vast majority of the country, and are spetacularly failing to maintain the successes of the edposed regime (e.g. illegal narcotics production) , while spectaculrly failing to date to remove the oppression of the old regime.

So, we see an ongoing war, which is following exactly the same pattern as the previous war in Afghanistan (which was an unmitigated failure), and yet this war is a "success". How can it be a success if its not even over yet?

Hell, it doesnt even appear to have achieved its originally stated objectives of getting bin Laden, and crippling Al Qaeda. He remains at large, and the US would have us believe Al Qaeda remains a massive threat....well, when they have their "bomb Iraq" hat on. When they have the "wasnt Afghanistan great" hat on, they are more inclined to admit that Al Qaeda was comprehensively crippled by their clear and decisive action.

As I said, Afghanistan is not perfect, but it could hardly be expected to be after twenty years of conflict. The government headed by Hamid Karzai is a transitional government before a fully democratic constitution takes effect in 2004.

Which, with the aid of the foreign troops, will have a spere of influence stretching no more than about 100km from the capital city. Withdraw the foreign troops with their unquestioned technical superiority, and it remains to be seen whether or not the transition government could even keep control of that.

Human rights abuses still occur, but can anyone, hand on heart, say they would prefer to live in Afghanistan under the Taliban than under the transitional authority?

Can anyone say with their hand on their heart that life is better outside the small sphere of western influence? Now that the Taliban are gone, the warlords run their individual fiefdoms as they see fit - which could be worse than what the Taliban allowed.

We hear nothing of these outer regions though...only about the work in and around the capital, and over towards the Pakistani border.

Face facts, the Afghan war was one of the most noble and just wars fought in human history.

So what? Even if you believe that, it doesnt mean that it was a success, just that the reasons for going in there were good ones.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Capitalism without doubt caused the deaths of more people than are alive in Ireland today - many many more people.

And, of course, communism/socialism has never killed anyone :rolleyes:

TomF

An old cousin of mine was in a United States Army Infantry division in the Pacific theater in World War II and took part in the battle for Okinawa. This was one of the most savage battles of all time, and when it was over, he and his buddies were sent to the Philippines to recover, re-equip and wait for the next step, the invasion of Japan. The expected casualties there were counted in the million, soldiers and civilians, because resistance was expected to be even more fanatical than in Okinawa.

He showed me shapshots of his friends and one after another he pointed to the ones who were killed. He said that he remembered walking down to the beach while in the Philippines and seeing the invasion fleet anchored out in the gulf with so many that its extent could not be seen as in their numbers they stretched to the horizon. He said they all vanished practically overnight after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they had moved to load the occupation army, and his unit was to go back to America. He told me that every American soldier there was behind Truman's decision to use the bombs and that he himself had no doubt that the bombing was the only reason he survived the war.

When I read the posts about all the world's evils being due to capitalism and the absence of socialistic government I can only shake my head at the ignoring of the limitations of human nature. Even Ireland, with its government-administered national police force, national medical system, national telephone system, national electrical system, national transportation system has failed at socialism. It just doesn't work, and never will work and the sooner people realize there is no earthly paradise that will be delivered by socialism with its elite of planners-of-all-things at the top and its worship of carefully-interpreted and doctored history, the sooner we'll all be better-off.

ayatollah

Originally posted by SearrarD
War doesnt determine who wins or loses, War determines who is left....

damn true!!

Éomer of Rohan

So let me get this straight, the only criticism that Tom F and Meh, both of whom we are well aware from other posts hold semi right wing views, could bring against my previous argument is that I am a Socialist??

In answer to one point, the only deaths resultant from true socialism and not a Stalinist corruption of a noble ideal were during the Russian Civil War when Trotsky and the Red Army fought quite ruthlessly for a workers state which was corrupted later by Stalin and his nepotism/cronyism not to mention blind luck!

Neither of you have comprehension of what Marx and Lenin and Trotsky represent for the Working classes but this is largely irrelevent since this is a thread about the successes of America's wars. If you wish to start an in depth debate about the virtues and vices of capitalism versus the virtues and vices of socialism, send me the link and I will happily torpedo every one of your arguments, not that it would do any good since you each are obviously of closed mind.

As to the touching stories of Tom F and his cousin's friends who never made it back from the Pacific War, let me say this - I too had relatives who fought in the Second World War - one was a regimental sergeant major with the Royal Irish Rifles and was killed evacuating his men from the beaches at Dunkirk. Death is the reality of war and war is the reality of capitalism. Look at history closely as I guess you will not do and see that ultimately all wars are wars of greed. The idea that Truman had to drop two nuclear weapons to end the war - kill what amounted to 140,000 civilians to end the war is a myth; if you read any history book it will give indepth reading as to the offers of a peace between Japan and America which the US refused due to their desire for unconditional surrender - an idea horrific to Japanese culture.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
He told me that every American soldier there was behind Truman's decision to use the bombs and that he himself had no doubt that the bombing was the only reason he survived the war.

So?

Unless you're claiming that the soldier's on the ground were the most informed about the reality of the situation, you're not really making a argument in favour of anything.

Yes, its nice that this specific individual survived, but at what cost? If his life cost the lives of 1,000,000 others would you still argue that it was worth keeping him alive?

The fallacy of war is the belief that it is the lives of the victors which are somehow more important.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So let me get this straight, the only criticism that Tom F and Meh, both of whom we are well aware from other posts hold semi right wing views, could bring against my previous argument is that I am a Socialist??

And the irony is that you're using the exact same argument you accuse me of using. "Don't listen to him, he's a dirty capitalist!"

In answer to one point, the only deaths resultant from true socialism and not a Stalinist corruption of a noble ideal were during the Russian Civil War when Trotsky and the Red Army fought quite ruthlessly for a workers state which was corrupted later by Stalin and his nepotism/cronyism not to mention blind luck!

So Russia under Stalin wasn't socialist? Seems to me that Stalin was the direct heir to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat". Isn't it great that, when confronted with the shortcomings of socialism, you weasel out of it by claiming "That wasn't really socialism".

Has there ever been any society/community in history that you would acknowledge as socialist? How about Cuba?

Éomer of Rohan

At no point in either argument did I point out that people should listen to you since you are pro-capitalist. I have made the link on several occasions between war and capitalism but at no point did I dismiss your views because of the ideology you follow. If you wish to produce a quote that says otherwise I will be happy to correct you.

[So Russia under Stalin wasn't socialist? Seems to me that Stalin was the direct heir to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat". Isn't it great that, when confronted with the shortcomings of socialism, you weasel out of it by claiming "That wasn't really socialism".]

Quoted from Meh by the way. It seems that way does it? Allow me to enlighten you. At no time in human history has there been a government that followed Socialist principles - the RSFSR until 1924 and the succession of Stalin was in a near permanent state of war and thus the government and it's accompanying bureaucracy were not established until the control of one man was complete. China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and the various 'communist' African states are all based on the Stalinist and Maoist (which is an agricultural deviation from Stalinism but generally works on the same flawed principles) models for one real reason; economic resources were forthcoming for the countries that adopted this approach from the USSR and PRC.

Isn't it wonderful how petty little minds cannot attack the argument directly and need to find some other way to discredit it?

As for weaseling out of it, Lenin himself admitted before he died that the new USSR was in fact not what he or Marx had envisioned but a distortion of that ideal - and he didn't even have a reason to admit it then as you perceive that I do now.

As I was saying, this debate on Socialism, it's deviations and your personal attacks are irrelevent. Please add something constructive to the argument at hand; America and what succesful wars she has been engaged in.

is this not about America being "policeman of the world">?

Well, WW1, they joined for their own reasons, generally because of the sinking of the Luisitania, and the attacks on their own shipping. It was an act of war, not them acting as policemen.

WW2: Germany declared war on the US, as did Japan. America didn't enter the war on their own.

Korea: I don't actually know much abt this one. But since the country is divided, & still at war, its hardly a success is it?

Vietnam: They tried, but didn't learn anything from the French. I don't really consider this as a policing action, though.

The (First) Gulf War: Success. Again though. This was not a policing action. It was simply an economic reason. The drop of oil supplies drove them to it.

Kosovo: Policing action. I don't see this as a success though. Too many issues left unresolved.

Afghanistan - definetly now a policing action. This was revenge, pure & simple.

Other - what does this include? The Bay of pigs, and other intelligence missions? These can be hardly placed under the cover of policing. Alot of these missions were America's attempts at being a world power, and their attempts of counter USSR influence in the world.

None - I tend to agree with this option. Very few of the incidents that the US have been involved in can be considered policing actions, since in most cases they were forced into acting, or had alternative reasons for their attacks. Also, any war they were involved with on their own, can hardly be considered as being Policing actions, since they acted as vigilantes.

utopio

Successfull american wars?? What's that?
it depends on the definition of successfull. When you mean won wars they have several successfull wars, but in general a war never is successfull!! They perhaps won WWI and WWII, but it wasn't successfull: to many ppl died there and in many American wars they only got several new enemies by destroying one.

War is not about the people who die, but the objectives therein that are achieved. I agree that war is a terrible thing, but be realistic about its reasons, and how a war can be successful. WW2 was successful, since both Japan, & Germany were occupied, and they have not remained the military based powers they were prior to the war. That is how the allies were successful in the war. Not just America, the Allies.

As for winning wars, America hasn't won that many. If you look at the wars for the last 3 decades, all the ones that are considered successful, America has been supported by other countries.