The attention of U.S.

forces, a list that would include conflicts in Libya, Somalis,

Syria, and Yemen. Granted, our general has demonstrated an impressive aptitude
for moving pieces around on a dauntingly complex military chessboard. Brigades,
battle groups, and squadrons shuttle in and out of various war zones, responding to
the needs of the moment. The sheer immensity of the enterprise across the Greater
Middle East and northern African the seamless deployment and redeployment of
thousands of troops over thousands of miles, the vast stockpiles of material
positioned, expended, and continuously resupplied represents a staggering
achievement. Measured by these or similar quantifiable outputs, Americas military
has excelled. No other military establishment in history could have become close to
duplicating the logistical feats being performed year in, year out by the armed
forces of the United States.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001,
something like 370, 00 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in various
theater of operation where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by
twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvests of death us hardly trivial.
Yet in evaluating military operations, its a mistake to confuse how much with how
well. Only rarely do the outcomes of armed conflicts turn on comparative statistics.
Ultimately, the one measure of success that really matters involves achieving wars
political purposes. By that standard, victory requires not simply the defeat of the
enemy, but accomplishing the nations stated war aims, and not just in part or
temporarily but definitively.
By that standard, having been at war for virtually the entire twenty-first century,
the United States military is still looking for its first win. And however strong the
disinclination to concede that Donald Trump cold right about anything, his verdict on
American generalship qualifies as apt.
In earlier eras, the very structure of wars provided a relatively straightforward
mechanism for testing such claims to expertise. Events on the battlefield rendered
harsh judgments, creating or destroying reputations with brutal efficiency.
Back then, standards employed in evaluating generalship were clear-cut and
uncompromising. Those who won battle earned fame, glory, and the gratitude of
their countrymen. Those who lost battles got fired or were put out to pasture. Today,
public drunkenness, petty corruption, or sexual shenanigans with a subordinate
might land generals in hot water. But as long as they avoid egregious misbehavior,
senior officers charged with prosecuting Americas wars are largely spared
judgments of any sort. Trying hard is enough to get a passing grade.
With the countrys political leaders and public conditioned to conflicts seemingly
destined to drag on for years, if not decades, no one expects the current general-inchief in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring things to a successful conclusion.

The United States may today have the worlds most powerful and capable military
so at least we are