The United States possesses the most powerful, capable military the world has ever known. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and what history keeps answering for us, is how that military is used, and who is trusted to command it.
The capture of Saddam Hussein is often remembered as a clean victory. A dictator found hiding underground. A symbolic end to a regime. But that moment came only after months of war, thousands of American casualties, and a strategy that confused overwhelming force with effective leadership.
Understanding that distinction matters because what followed Iraq shows how profoundly leadership choices shape outcomes, for better or worse.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq began in March 2003 under President George W. Bush. Saddam Hussein was the objective, but the method chosen to reach that objective was a full-scale invasion and occupation. The biggest mistake Bush made was going along with the globalist agenda in running a full-scale war. Sure, the United States could economically afford it, but there was no strategic interest in going into Iraq, let alone targeting Saddam Hussein.
Don’t get me wrong. I love our men and women in uniform. They do a job that no one else wants to do. They keep us safe and free. They take orders and complete their missions. I blame none of this on them because they are the honorable ones throughout.
At the height of the invasion, roughly 150,000 U.S. troops were deployed inside Iraq. Over time, more than 1.5 million Americans would serve there. Saddam was not captured until December 13, 2003, nearly nine months after the war began.
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNELBy then, the cost was already staggering.
Thousands of American service members had been killed or wounded. Hundreds of billions of dollars had been spent. The insurgency was taking shape. And the capture of Saddam, while symbolically important, did not end the violence. It followed it.
Iraq demonstrated that even the strongest military on Earth can be misused when leadership confuses regime removal with victory.
If Iraq showed the cost of endless war, Afghanistan showed the cost of careless retreat.
After twenty years of fighting, the United States still possessed total military dominance in the region. The withdrawal in 2021 did not fail because the U.S. military was weak. It failed because the operation was poorly planned, poorly led, and rushed due to political pressure from the feckless Biden.
President Donald Trump started the withdrawal process. His Pentagon had a plan to withdraw Americans working in the country and the military with dignity, leaving a small group of troops behind to run and protect Bagram Air Base.
We all know what happened in 2020. A new administration came in, and everything went downhill quickly.
Under Joe Biden, the Afghanistan withdrawal collapsed into chaos. The Taliban advanced unchecked. Most estimate over one thousand Americans were left behind, while a Senate report reveals up to 9,000. Afghan partners were abandoned as well. Equipment was left behind. American forces were forced into a desperate evacuation under hostile control.
The Biden Pentagon decided to let the Taliban be in charge of security for Kabul airport, where those leaving would board planes.
Thirteen U.S. service members were killed at Abbey Gate. That loss was not the result of enemy superiority. It was the result of leadership failure.
Afghanistan proved something crucial: even ending a war requires competence, clarity, and respect for the lives of Americans. When those are absent, disaster follows, even without an enemy victory.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, a different doctrine emerged, one that rejected both endless war and careless disengagement.
Under President Trump, the focus shifted away from occupation and toward tactical, intelligence-driven power. The goal was not to remake nations, but to protect American interests while minimizing American sacrifice.
In June 2025, the United States launched Operation Midnight Hammer, a series of targeted airstrikes against three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. According to U.S. and allied assessments, the strikes significantly damaged these sites and severely degraded Iran’s nuclear program, setting its nuclear timeline back by an estimated one to two years. Iran publicly downplayed the impact, but even Tehran acknowledged damage and material movement. The strikes were executed without a single reported American casualty, reinforcing the principle that American power, when wielded with precision and clear purpose, can achieve strategic setbacks for hostile adversaries without American lives lost. No other country on earth could have pulled this off, and the US may not have been able to without the leadership of President Trump.
This approach was visible across multiple theaters, including dealing with the dictator of Venezuela.
Rather than invading, the United States applied sanctions, legal pressure, intelligence operations, and diplomatic isolation against Nicolás Maduro and his regime. Narco-terrorism indictments were filed, and Maduro was eventually indicted in New York. Financial networks were targeted. Leadership circles were pressured.
There was no occupation. No mass deployment. No prolonged ground war.
Most importantly, there were no American casualties tied to an Iraq-style intervention because there was no Iraq-style intervention. And there were no Americans left behind like they were in Afghanistan.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela are not the same conflict. But together, they tell a single story.
The United States military is not the problem. It never was.
The problem is leadership that:
-
Treats war as a default solution
-
Treats withdrawal as a public relations exercise
-
Or treats American lives as expendable costs of poor planning
When leaders reject endless wars, respect the cost of human life, and use military power tactically and deliberately, outcomes change.
Strength is not measured by how long we stay. It is measured by how cleanly objectives are achieved. And whether Americans come home alive.
America does not need to fight forever to remain strong. It does not need to occupy nations to prove resolve.
And it does not need to accept casualties as inevitable.
What America needs are leaders who understand that the world’s greatest military is most effective when it is used sparingly, intelligently, and with total respect for the lives of the men and women who serve.
History has already shown us the difference.
#americanstrength #militaryleadership #nationalsecurity
