2025-04-30T00:00:00Z

---

The adage in football asserts that a prevent defense often prevents a team from achieving victory. This principle applies equally to warfare, where the constraints imposed by Democratic administrations on military engagement have become significant barriers to the United States winning conflicts. The history of U.S. military interventions, particularly since Lyndon Johnson, reveals a pattern of hesitation rooted in a fear of nuclear escalation and a media landscape that thrives on sensationalism. This reluctance has hindered Democratic presidents from articulating a clear definition of victory in war, let alone actively pursuing it.

Take the Vietnam War as a prime example. The U.S. ultimately lost this conflict not merely due to enemy strength but largely because of a misguided strategy of graduated escalation. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations operated under an exaggerated fear of potential Soviet and Chinese intervention, leading to a self-defeating approach that aimed to convince a resolute North Vietnamese regime that it could not achieve victory rather than focusing on defeating it directly.

Fast forward to the present, and we see similar dynamics playing out in the context of the Ukraine conflict. The Biden administration's handling of military support to Ukraine has been criticized for lacking urgency and decisiveness. Initially, Ukraine displayed remarkable heroism and had a significantly better chance of success. However, the Biden administration's cautious approachmarked by delayed military assistance, restrictive conditions, and an overall reluctance to escalatehas transformed a potentially winnable conflict into a prolonged war of attrition that heavily favors Russia. With its vast resources and an unwavering leader like Vladimir Putin, Russia has gained significant advantages, leaving Ukraine in a precarious position.

While it's essential for any leader to weigh the risks and costs of escalationespecially concerning nuclear threatsit is equally crucial to assess the consequences of inaction. The balance between responding to threats and avoiding escalation must be carefully considered. Throughout this period, adversaries such as Putin, the Iranian leadership, and Xi Jinping have taken advantage of the U.S.'s fixation on the dangers of escalation, leading to significant strategic disadvantages for the free world.

The fear of escalation has not hampered the ambitions of the so-called 'Axis of Tyranny' comprising China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, all of whom are dedicated to achieving military victory whenever possible. These nations are only held back by the military capabilities and credibility of the free world. Notably, U.S. leadership has not always been paralyzed by fears of escalation. The first Iraq War, led by President George H.W. Bush, was decisively won on the battlefield. Likewise, although the second Iraq War saw initial success under President George W. Bush, the premature withdrawal of American forces during the Obama administration squandered that victory.

In stark contrast, the Biden administration's hesitance in the face of Iran's provocations, particularly regarding its pressure on Israel, has drawn criticism. The successful military campaigns by Israel against groups like Hezbollah and Hamas highlight the potential for decisive victories, especially as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have strategically neutralized Iranian air defenses. This success underscores a stark gap between Israel's assertive military actions and the U.S. administration's cautious stance, which often seems hesitant to endorse clear victories.

As a result of the defeats suffered by Iran and its allies, as well as Russia's struggles in Ukraine, the Assad regime in Syria faces collapse, highlighting the fragile state of alliances that were once thought robust. The idea that victory in warfare is no longer attainable for open societies, even amid nuclear threats and media scrutiny, is a misconception. With sufficient preparation, determination, and inspired leadership, victory can remain within reach.

The most significant barriers to the United States successfully waging war stem from the priorities and worldview espoused by the progressive left within the Democratic Party. Contrary to the pessimism promoted by isolationist factions on both the left and right, the U.S. possesses ample resources to fight and win conflicts in critical geopolitical arenas. However, this potential can only be realized if the nation recalibrates its strategies and approaches that have long hindered military effectiveness.

Key issues include underfunding the defense sector, overregulating the economy, prioritizing excessive domestic spending on often counterproductive programs, and neglecting the defense industrial base. The current Pentagon procurement process remains inefficient, producing fewer weapons at higher costs and taking too long, stifling the innovation necessary for maintaining military superiority.

Investing five percent of GDP could create a defense posture capable of deterring conflict and winning wars with manageable costs and risks. Furthermore, its imperative to rethink spending priorities, rebuild the military industrial complex, reform the Pentagon, and invigorate the private sector. Importantly, the pervasive influence of 'woke' ideology must be addressed, as it undermines the belief in the U.S.'s ability to engage in and win conflicts, as well as questioning the moral legitimacy of such victories.

As the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz noted, war is an extension of politics by other means. The interplay of technological advancements, domestic political dynamics, and shifting moral sentiments will influence the U.S.'s ability to deter and engage in warfare. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the U.S. itself to recognize and act upon the reality that victory is essential and achievable, provided there is the will and capability to pursue it.