Listen to this article:

New Delhi: Over the past several decades, the US has cultivated a mythology of military competence and moral clarity in its innumerable involvements in global conflicts. Yet, even a cursory examination of these engagements reveals a pattern less of strategic brilliance than of inconsistency, overreach, and recurring failure to translate battlefield successes into lasting political outcomes.   

This reflects a persistent tendency in which the US underestimates its adversaries – like in Iran today – misreads complex local contexts, and, above all, grossly overestimates the universal appeal of American ideals abroad. Such a pattern is not merely a recurring miscalculation, but a structural blindness in which military superiority substitutes for political understanding, spawning predictable cycles of intervention, disruption, and unresolved conflict.

 Taken together, these patterns suggest that from its earliest internal four-year upheaval in the Civil War (1861-1865) to its current entanglements in the Middle East, the US’s record of military interventions reflects a nation repeatedly stumbling into conflicts it poorly understands and exiting them with outcomes far murkier than its rhetoric is ever willing to admit.

The Civil War itself – often framed as a defining moral victory for the ‘good side’ – exposed profound weaknesses in military leadership, planning, and national cohesion. The Union, under Abraham Lincoln, ultimately prevailed, but only after staggering casualties and years of tactical blundering. 

Online research has revealed that in its initial years, Union generals were notoriously ineffective and frequently replaced as the fighting persisted. Victory did not come decisively, but was ground out over time through sustained pressure, relentless attrition that gradually wore the Confederate Army down. It was a brutal lesson that even in a war fought on home soil, the US required years to align its political goals with effective military execution. 

Fast forward to the 20th century, and the narrative of US competence often rests heavily on the two World Wars; though even here the story is as much reactive and performative as it is heroic, bolstered by exaggerated myth making and Hollywood movie splendour. It’s often overlooked that in the case of World War I, the US did not so much rush into the conflict as drift into it – after 983 days of watching from the sidelines.

It entered the war in April 1917, triggered primarily by Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, which threatened American commercial and passenger shipping in the Atlantic. This was further compounded by the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram in 1917, in which Germany proposed a military alliance with Mexico against the US and together, these developments shifted American public and political opinion decisively against Berlin.

Thereafter, President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on the grounds of “making the world safe for democracy,” framing US entry as a high-sounding moral and strategic necessity and one not driven by territorial ambition. The US thus entered the global conflict in its final phase, when exhaustion on both sides had already set in, and the war’s outcome was increasingly being shaped by attrition rather than manoeuvre, much akin to the American Civil War in the previous century.

The American Expeditionary Forces under General John J. Pershing arrived in Europe in mid-1917 as a largely untested mass army, still improvising doctrine, logistics, and........

© The Wire