After WWII a fundamental change occurred in how the United States prosecutes war. First, Congress stopped exercising their constitutional duty of declaring war. So entering military “conflicts” became a political decision made by presidents, and the issue of congressional funding for these “conflicts” also turned into a political function. As such, these wars became primarily an arm of our international policy, coordinated with the developing “global community” perspective, epitomized by the United Nations.
Second, because of the politicalizing of “conflicts”, more and more control, i.e. military decisions, were made by politicians rather than by military officers. Not only generals and admirals but troops on the ground are now dependent upon the approval of politicians for any actions they take. The military simply can’t function that way and have any hope of defeating the enemy.
Third, because of the global/political implications of modern warfare, the very concepts of sovereignty and national interests (such as protecting our borders, our seas and our air space) are threatened. The globalist view is that while our “homeland” may be where we live, we owe a greater allegiance to our regional multi-national associations (such as the North American Partnership for Prosperity) and our ultimate allegiance is to the United Nations. In their view, we should pay taxes to the UN, and the UN should have the final say in how we use natural resources. They don’t want us to have the freedoms which are now guaranteed by our Constitution. They are opposed to private gun ownership because that threatens the power of a one-world government. And they certainly don’t want our Constitution to get in the way of international law.
Fourth, the new paradigm for prosecuting military “conflicts” includes the basic assumptions that war is, by definition, wrong, and that military weapons are, by definition evil. The net effect is that even if we do get into a war, we discover our purpose really isn’t to win it (that would be barbaric) but to gain financial benefits for some and gain political clout for others. We certainly don’t want to win in Iraq or Afghanistan. We’ve had more than enough time to win — much more than it took us to win WWII.
The politicians aren’t allowing the military to fight to win. That’s why they’ve come up with an award for restraint. But far worse is the number of good soldiers who have been court-martialed and imprisoned for doing their duty. Anyone who has ever been in combat knows that you either destroy the enemy or they destroy you. Unfortunately, our own leadership doesn’t believe that. They are either caught up in the insanity of globalism or looking to line their own pockets with our money.
And speaking of insanity, we read in the Federalist Papers that originally, the call for a Constitution (to replace the Articles of Confederation) was based in part so that we could establish a national armed forces strictly for our own national defense. Global opportunism (under the banner of defending freedom world-wide) was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Now, nationalism is considered evil and borders considered obsolete. When the President says a nation isn’t defined by its borders, there is no reason to expect government to defend the borders or our nation.