The United States has entered wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it cannot win.

Thank you for your interesting and philosophical argument, but I must disagree that there are no real winners in war. Short of total thermonuclear war and the alternate reality in which the film "War Games" exists, there are winners. Now, as I know you've been waiting, here is my round's argument. We can agree that all foreign wars are foreign policy decisions made by the United States government. We can also agree that foreign policy is crafted by Congress and the Executive branch of government, with the primary actor being the Department of State (DoS) in the executive branch. Finally, the mission of the DoS is to advance U.S. objectives and interests worldwide. The Department of Defense, through military means, is carrying out a foreign policy, crafted by the DoS, in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lends itself to the quote coined by Carl Von Clausewitz that, "War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." This means that the wars waged in these countries, managed by the DoD, are instruments in advancing U.S. interests and objectives. Interests and objectives determined in our Houses of Congress and the DoS, both of which are political entities. A quote by Franklin Delano Roosevelt is also worth mentioning, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Therefore, the true scope of these wars must be greater than merely meeting, capturing, or defeating terrorists in the killing fields of central Asia on the whims of the former President. But instead, a premeditated action aimed at advancing the global position of the United States. So, let us examine the stated objectives of the "Bush Doctrine" as most people believe them to be. The stated objectives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are: 1.Spread democracy 2.Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction 3.Stop the spread of terrorism and remove regimes which harbor terrorists But, a primary objective of the DoD is to plan for and prevent the ascension of Peer Competitors, which is any nation, or group of nations, that compete for influence with the hegemony of the United States of America. http://www.rand.org... Therefore, one can be certain that this too is an objective. Because, carrying on the motif of chess, why would one rout the King in two moves when it can be done with one? Now, "win" according to the Merriam Webster's online dictionary means to succeed. Success in these wars would be to complete objectives. Now, here is the tricky part. Thought on war is divided into tactics and strategy. Tactics are the things that happen on the ground, the individual battles and movements within these battles. Strategy is the use of force to complete strategic and political objectives. Tactically, the U.S. cannot be beaten in either theater due to the large amount of military training, spending, and leadership versus small guerilla units lacking significant equipment and tactical leadership. And, the U.S. has completed objectives one through three in Iraq, while completing two through three in Afghanistan (It is debatable whether the Afghan democracy is viable). Strategically, both locales allow the United States to straddle Iran, a significant regional power. Both theaters place the U.S. within 600 miles of the Caspian Sea, a major oil producing region. Coincidentally, 600 miles is also the range of the F-15 Strike Eagle; allowing the U.S. to conduct air strikes and combat operations in the Caspian if need be. Troop movements in Afghanistan also threaten Russia's southern border as well as China's western border; both are countries which aim to be peer competitors of the United States. To win strategically the U.S. must only deny or delay the rise of the peer competitors of Iran (Now facing governmental crisis), Russia, and China. I propose that these are merely two small wars within the geo-political arena. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be won tactically, though the number of causalities may be high, and they can be won strategically. They are the U.S. attempt of influence on the world island.