Decades from now, historians and academics will analyze our current US military. Likely, the analysis will not be kind. Facts:
1. The US has the largest military budget of any country in the world. Currently, the US spends over $831B on defense. This is how this financial outlay compares to other countries in the world as of 2024:
US $831 Billion
China $227 Billion
Russia $109 Billion
India $74 Billion
Saudi Arabia $71 Billion
United Kingdom $62 Billion
Germany $55 Billion
Japan $53 Billion
Australia $52 Billion
France $49 Billion1
2. The US enjoys the most technologically advanced military in the world. Systems like the F-35 fighter, Ford Class aircraft carrier, UAVs, and cyberwarfare equipment have no equal currently in the world.
Historians of the future will then ask the obvious question – “Why can’t the US of the early 2000s win long wars?” Many variables need to be considered when explaining success or victory on the battlefield. Technology, quantities of equipment/vehicles, numbers of troops, training of troops, leadership, geography, and weather are among the factors involved. Even luck/misfortune is a variable when the ‘fog of war’ is considered. Wars that last years require immense resources. Long wars also usually exclude luck as an isolated variable because a single ‘lucky’ attack outcome is unlikely to substantially change the outcome of a long, larger war. The obvious conclusion is that the military leadership failed.
Generals neither start wars nor resource them. These actions belong to politicians and elected civilian officials. However, once the decision to go to war is made, the outcome in the “sandbox” that is the battlefield is dependent on the military leadership in charge of the troops, resources, tactics, and strategy employed.
Our military looks pretty in videos with its modern equipment and sleek aircraft, ships, and vehicles. Our troops look crisp and smart in their uniforms. US generals brief often their optimistic appraisals they do of the military to describe its state of readiness. This is no different than any other field of endeavor – sports, business, etc. Sports teams can have beautiful stadiums and muscular athletes in smart uniforms, but still have losing records. Businesses can have gorgeous, modern buildings and very stylistic logos but still lose money.
The critical and tragic difference is that in almost all other professions, failure results in analysis of leadership and likely turnover of leaders that fail to perform to satisfaction. In 2023, 8 of the 32 teams in the NFL fired their head coaches for failing to perform. In the American corporate world, 2024 saw the most CEOs ousted since analyst firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas began tracking the date in 2002 – over 1,800!2
The US spent nearly 20 years in Afghanistan, a debacle that ended in a humiliating and sudden withdrawal in August 2021. During that time, many general officers from division commanders to theater commanders rotated through the conflict. During that time, no commanders were relieved for failure to perform/win. The only notable general the author tracked was MG Peter Fuller who was fired by GEN Allen for making “inappropriate public comments.” MG Fuller, the deputy commander in charge of Afghan training was relieved after criticizing then Afghan President Karzai and describing him as being “isolated from reality.”3
The catastrophic collapse of the Afghan military in 2021 was not a surprise. They were poorly trained and reported to a corrupt local regime. This was clearly visible for nearly the entire war. US generals did their best to hide this obvious reality for years which brings up 2 reasons why generals failed the country – 1. failure to adapt to defeat the Taliban or at least create a favorable outcome the US could live with, and 2. ethical problems ranging from delusional beliefs to outright lies about the status of the war.
Generals exist to win wars. Period. Their continued tenure is also tied to the belief that they can be trusted by the US public and the civilian chain of command. For 20 years the vast majority of generals in command failed both measures.
After losing a war, the generals returned to ‘normalcy’ in the US and perpetrated further debacles that undermined their self-stated competence and credibility:
Illogical COVID mandate that ousted proven warriors from the Department of Defense
Embracement of DEI that challenged meritocracy and decreased the quality and capability of the troops in addition to harming recruiting
Endorsing general officer peers for promotion that failed to win in combat (embracing an ethos of losing)
Refusal to perform introspection within the general officer corps and own its part in the failure in Afghanistan
Now, the same US general officer class is beginning to grovel to the media to defend its “greatness” and arrogantly wonder why their competency and honor are being questioned. Many of the generals who failed the country have since left the military. But, their damage lives on in the new class of generals who seemingly have learned nothing of consequence from the above failures of those that came before them. The end result will likely be future inability to win wars and future weakness and ethical lapses.
Clearly, the biggest military threat to the US right now is not any enemy from without but from America’s own generals. The enemy is within. It is long overdue to analyze the failures of modern US generals, eliminate those that were responsible, and via forced retirements send a message to the remaining generals that failure and ethical malfeasance will not be tolerated.
