Due to a sudden, unexpected passing in the family a few years ago and another more recently and my subsequent (mental) health issues stemming from that, I was unable to download this book in time to review it before it was archived as I did not visit this site for several years after the bereavements. This meant I didn't read or venture onto netgalley for years as not only did it remind me of that person as they shared my passion for reading, but I also struggled to maintain interest in anything due to overwhelming depression. I was therefore unable to download this title in time and so I couldn't give a review as it wasn't successfully acquired before it was archived. The second issue that has happened with some of my other books is that I had them downloaded to one particular device and said device is now defunct, so I have no access to those books anymore, sadly.

This means I can't leave an accurate reflection of my feelings towards the book as I am unable to read it now and so I am leaving a message of explanation instead. I am now back to reading and reviewing full time as once considerable time had passed I have found that books have been helping me significantly in terms of my mindset and mental health - this was after having no interest in anything for quite a number of years after the passings. Anything requested and approved will be read and a review written and posted to Amazon (where I am a Hall of Famer & Top Reviewer), Goodreads (where I have several thousand friends and the same amount who follow my reviews) and Waterstones (or Barnes & Noble if the publisher is American based). Thank you for the opportunity and apologies for the inconvenience.

I really loved this book. It tells it as it is and is so true. It’s right on, though I’d also add that it should be expanded upon, maybe a book two? There are so many reasons America loses wars but man this is a great book with a great start on why.

In his new book, Donald Stoker asks Why America Loses Wars: Limited War and US Strategy from the Korean War to the Present?

Stoker uses the Korean War as the case study to answer this question. This led to an in-depth analysis of his concept of limited war and how it has impacted U.S. participation in wars since.

Stoker would have been better served by studying another war, the American Revolution. The Revolutionary War was an "absolute war," which Stoker argues is the ideal kind. However, reality usually intervenes when politics, friction, the action of the enemy, and other forces unite to produce the reality of war.

This subsequently leads to limited war - narrowing of the political objective and eventually strategy, operations, and tactics to meet the limited objective. Worse yet, even the limited political objective changes, which begets wars that are fought for a moving target and seem to the American people to be endless.

The American Revolution was a brutal, home front war that lasted for eight years. The Continental Army and Congress worked in tandem to prosecute the war. It was fraught with peril. Those who did not lose their lives, often lost their health, fortunes, and families.

While many believed in the cause, the military and political leaders of the Revolution also had to contend with those who had no stomach for war and the ones who were outright loyal to the Mother Country and fought on its behalf. Twice the Continental Congress had to flee the British Army.

The Continental Army lacked recruits, supplies, food, adequate housing, and even pay. Conditions were so bad that soldiers and officers contemplated mutiny several times before the war's end.

Despite the litany of horrific conditions, there was no bending of the knee, plea for terms, or shift in the objective. It was an absolute war that would only end with the destruction of the Continental Army or independence from Britain. The objective was clear and the leadership did not waiver until it was reached.

That being said, Stoker does lay out an ideal strategy for conducting a limited war in Chapter 5, which includes - 1) establishing a clear political objective; 2) making a rational assessment of the situation; 3) having a clear relationship between the ends sought and the means used to achieve these goals; 4) understanding the limits of military force; 5) leadership who understand how to use force; 6) informed, rational, and strategic operational planning; and 7) a plan to end the war and secure peace.

War is terrible. Limited war is even worse. It risks valuable lives while political leaders analyze risks, the internal political environment, public opinion, and all the other unknowns that are revealed in the "fog of war." From this reader's perspective, the only way to win a limited war is to avoid it at all costs.

https://nathanspapers.com/f/book-review-why-america-loses-wars

Why America Loses Wars: Limited War and US Strategy from the Korean War to the Present by Donald Stoker is an examination of war theory and the practice of the United States in a period where the United States did not have a single declared war. Stoker was a Professor of Strategy and Policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s program at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California for 18 years. He currently is a Visiting Fellow and Fulbright Visiting Professor of International Relations, Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, Austria.

Why America Loses Wars is a scholarly look at war and peace. Stoker draws heavily from Clausewitz to form his thesis and uses recent history to support his thinking. Kissinger would agree with America's most significant reason for losing wars -- lack of long term strategy. Machiavelli would also give the nod to not finishing the conflict correctly. America, by far, has the largest, strongest, best-equipped military in the history of the world (despite what national leaders say). We lost in Vietnam, effectively lost in Korea, have been to Iraq three times, and Afghanistan without a decisive victory. With that being said, in the first Iraq War, Colin Powell was heavily criticized by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney for not developing a military plan for Iraq. Powell said he could not produce a plan until he had a clear political objective for the military action. That is probably one of the most important demands of a military leader in recent history -- a clear objective for the military operation. Compared to the second Bush and his war on global terrorism, his father was much more decisive in setting a goal. The younger Bush's war on global terrorism as an objective has been compared to "war on an abstract noun." It may sound good, but it is not a tangible objective. 

War in America has taken a turn. No recent president wants to admit being at war and that started with Truman and the Korean Conflict. Truman committed troops without a declaration of war; in fact, World War II was the last declaration of war issued by the United States. Now, if the war is popular congress usually goes ahead and funds the conflict, until it becomes unpopular. At that time, the military is forced to curtail its activities, and a quagmire develops. An actual declaration of war would help in several ways. First, it would require congressional approval which may not be expedient, but it would question and examine the goals of the conflict. Secondly, the president would need to present a clear objective to Congress rather than rally the American people to a cause. Consider: With proper thought, would America drop a winning conflict in Afghanistan to start a new war in Iraq? With proper thought and planning, would America have been able to achieve its goals in Afghanistan in less than seventeen years?

Stoker examines limited warfare and what the term means and what popular opinion makes it out to be. We are not a nation that is afraid of going to war; in fact, it seems we are too ready to go to war, just not finish it. War has become much like our infrastructure. We love to build great works; we don't like to maintain them.  A critically important book combining theory and recent American military actions.