Since the end of the Second World War in 1945, the United States has taken part in military operations in various countries, among them Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite having one of the world’s most powerful armed forces, a huge defence budget and a highly advanced arsenal, Washington has failed to achieve its long-term political aims in many of these operations. In some places the war ended unresolved, in some the opponent returned to power after the troops were withdrawn, and in others a new security crisis arose even after military success.
The continuing war around Iran has brought that old question to the fore again. Despite US President Donald Trump’s stern warnings and military pressure, a section of analysts doubts how far Washington’s aims regarding Tehran will be achieved. In their view, being ahead in military power and achieving the final political aim of a war are not the same thing.
From the Korean War to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, there are several examples in US military history where success on the battlefield did not in the end bring the desired political result. Huge spending, loss of life, regional instability and the rise of new opponents have in many cases also become long-term challenges for Washington.
The Korean War: three years of fighting and no final settlement
The Korean War is one of the most important examples for understanding the limits of US military operations after the Second World War. US forces took a direct part on South Korea’s side in the war, which began in 1950. The aim was to halt North Korea’s advance and protect the position of America’s allies on the Korean peninsula.
After nearly three years of fighting, an armistice agreement was signed in 1953. But no permanent peace treaty was made between the two Koreas. North Korea’s government also survived in power. The United States therefore could not meet the aim of defeating the country militarily and establishing the political system it wanted across the whole peninsula.
In the decades that followed, Washington imposed one set of sanctions after another on North Korea. Although the country faced wide isolation internationally, Pyongyang kept taking its nuclear programme forward. It tested a nuclear weapon for the first time in 2006, and has since increased its nuclear and missile capability.
This military capability has created new security concerns for the United States. Concern has grown in particular for the security of US allies such as Japan and South Korea. In other words, North Korea’s nuclear programme could not be stopped despite long military pressure and sanctions.
Vietnam: withdrawal after a long war
The Vietnam War is another large chapter in US military history. In the conflict, which began in 1955, Washington at first did not enter the fighting directly but gave South Vietnam military advice and financial help. From the mid-1960s, however, US troops began to take a direct part in the war. Heavy bombing was also carried out in various parts of the country.
Despite being ahead in technology, air power and weaponry, the United States could not defeat Vietnam’s communist forces. After more than eight years of large-scale military operations, US forces were withdrawn from the country in 1973.
More than 58,000 US soldiers were killed in the Vietnam War. Public opinion inside the United States also turned steadily against the huge loss of life and the cost of the war. The anti-war movement and political pressure influenced the US government’s decisions as well.
The Vietnam War ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975. North and South Vietnam were later unified under communist rule. America’s long military involvement did not in the end establish the political system Washington wanted in the country.
Afghanistan: the anti-Soviet fight that backfired
The history of US involvement in Afghanistan is more complicated. After Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979, Washington helped to build armed resistance against them. With Pakistan’s cooperation, money, weapons and training were arranged for the Afghan mujahideen. This secret programme of the US intelligence agency, the CIA, was known as Operation Cyclone.
After a long conflict, Soviet forces left Afghanistan in 1989. But no stable government was established in the country. Disputes among the various armed groups that had taken part in the anti-Soviet fight later gave rise to new conflict.
It was in this situation that al-Qaeda rose in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, Washington began a military operation in Afghanistan with the aim of finding the organisation’s founder, Osama bin Laden. In the operation, named Operation Enduring Freedom, the Taliban government fell and US forces and their allies took control of Kabul.
But the early military success could not ensure long-term peace. Bin Laden was killed in a US commando raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011. The war against the Taliban in Afghanistan went on, however.
When the United States withdrew its troops in 2021 after two decades of war, the Taliban again took power in Kabul. Despite a long military presence, huge spending and loss of life, Washington could not keep the government it backed in power in Afghanistan.
Nor was it possible to wipe out al-Qaeda completely. The Afghanistan war therefore remains a notable example of the hard reality of achieving long-term military and political aims for the United States.
Iraq: a new crisis after Saddam’s fall
In 1990 the government of Iraq’s then president, Saddam Hussein, occupied Kuwait. In response, a multinational coalition led by the United States began a military operation in 1991. In that operation, known as Operation Desert Storm, Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait and the country’s independence was restored.
But America’s conflict with Iraq did not end there. In 2003 US forces again carried out a military operation in the country. This time Saddam’s government fell and Saddam Hussein was arrested. He was later tried and executed.
After the change of government, however, establishing a stable political system in Iraq did not prove easy. Sectarian conflict, insurgency and insecurity became long-lasting. Later, armed groups such as Islamic State, or IS, rose. The organisation seized wide areas of Iraq and Syria.
In the same period Iran’s influence over Iraq’s politics and security system also grew. Various Iran-backed armed groups began to play an important part in the country’s political and military situation.
The fall of Saddam’s government was an immediate military success for the United States, but its aftermath is disputed. In the view of a section of analysts, a wide gap opened between the aims declared before the war and the reality that followed. If the Iraq operation is judged only by military victory, therefore, the long-term political and security challenges are overlooked.
Kosovo: military intervention did not end the political problem
The US-led Nato alliance carried out air strikes against Yugoslavia in 1999. Yugoslav forces were then withdrawn from Kosovo and the territory came under international administration.
But Kosovo’s political future was not settled straight after the military intervention. The territory declared independence in 2008. Although many countries, the United States among them, recognised Kosovo as an independent state, several countries, among them Serbia, Russia and China, did not accept that independence.
The case of Kosovo shows that military action can change the control of a territory or the balance of power but does not ensure a settlement of its international status and political disputes.
The Iran war: a repeat of old experience?
On 28 February 2026 the United States, together with Israel, began attacks on Iran. The conflict then spread to various parts of West Asia. Iran answered with missile and drone attacks. Concern grew about the security of US military installations in the region and of important sea lanes.
The aim of the US operation was to weaken Iran’s military capability and to deal with the security concerns around the country’s nuclear and missile programmes. But questions have arisen about how far these aims can be achieved by military strikes.
There is also concern about the cost of America’s Iran war. According to an estimate published on 23 June by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the cost of the war had reached about $40 billion. The range of the organisation’s estimate was $34 billion to $42 billion. Later spending is not fully reflected in it.
The effect of the war is not limited to military spending. Because shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted, instability has also arisen in international energy supply and the oil market. A vast amount of energy is carried through this sea lane, one of the most important in the world. A prolonged stalemate there therefore affects the economies and energy security of many countries.
A Reuters report published on 11 October said Iran has described the US response on opening the Strait of Hormuz as inadequate. This shows that, alongside the military conflict, the question of a diplomatic solution has also become important.
The outcome of the US military operation against Iran is therefore hard to judge only by how many targets have been destroyed or how much military damage has been done. The answers to other questions matter too: how far Iran’s military capability will be reduced when the war ends, what changes will come in the regional security order, and whether normal shipping will return to the Strait of Hormuz.
Why military power alone does not win a war
An analysis of America’s past wars shows several common tendencies. First, if there is vagueness in setting the aim of a military operation, the political solution becomes uncertain even after success on the battlefield. Second, although striking a country’s government or military installations is comparatively easy, establishing long-term stability there is far more complicated.
Third, even if the opponent’s military strength is reduced, its political ideology, nationalism or spirit of resistance cannot be rooted out. This is clear from the experience of Vietnam and Afghanistan. In the same way, the rise of new armed groups in Iraq even after the change of government showed that the situation can become more complicated when a power vacuum is created.
The economic cost of war, the deaths of soldiers and falling public support at home also put pressure on a military operation. Without the political will and economic capacity to carry on a war for a long time, even a powerful state finds it hard to achieve the result it wants.
America’s military structure has also changed with time. The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 brought important reforms to the command structure and joint operations of the armed forces. But the importance of strategic coordination, relations with the civilian leadership and setting the political aim of a war remains in military decision-making.
The question of what victory means
The claim that the United States has not won a single war since the Second World War is certainly an exaggeration. In various military operations, among them the 1991 operation to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, the United States achieved specific aims. But in long conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, a wide gap has been seen between military success and long-term political results.
The main question in analysts’ discussions is therefore what victory in a war means. Destroying the opponent’s military installations, changing a government or driving the enemy out of a territory is one kind of success. Turning that success into a lasting political solution is a different matter.
The United States faces the same challenge in the Iran war. Even if Tehran’s capability can be weakened by the use of military force, what will in the end decide the operation’s effectiveness is whether this brings a lasting change in the country’s policy, whether regional conflict is reduced and whether safe shipping is ensured in the Strait of Hormuz.
America’s past experience makes at least one thing clear: the ability to start a war and the ability to end it on one’s own terms are not the same. The final outcome of the Iran conflict will also depend, alongside military power, on how effectively diplomacy, political aims and the reality after the war can be managed.
বাংলায় মূল প্রতিবেদন পড়ুন · Read the original Bengali report