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." You don't give much support to this statement. War Games uses the philosophy that in war, both sides take so much damage that everybody is a loser, and horrible casualties make the war lost. "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.'" I happen to disagree with FDR on a lot of things. This is one of them. "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." You're using a false quote to say that something must be true? "So, let us examine the stated objectives of the 'Bush Doctrine' as most people believe them to be." You mean, we don't even know? How are we supposed to win a war when we aren't even sure of the objectives? "2.Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction" Well, were there any weapons of mass destruction? http://en.wikipedia.org... "By March 2003 Hans Blix had not found any stockpiles or evidence of WMD..." "Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s." "3.Stop the spread of terrorism and remove regimes which harbor terrorists" The wars themselves have spread terrorism. People realize that American troops are invading their homeland, so they join the neared jihad recruitment center and become a terrorist. "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." Proof? "Now, 'win' according to the Merriam Webster's online dictionary means to succeed." http://www.merriam-webster.com... That was the intransitive verb. We're talking about a transitive verb. "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." For one thing, the U.S. has less secrecy protection, because the U.S. has to announce practically every move it makes, while the guerillas can move around without us even knowing that they exist. "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)." We have not located any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Afghanistan doesn't even appear to be important enough to have its own Wiki article about WMDs. "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." Denying something wins wars? That doesn't even make sense. "Therefore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be won tactically, though the number of causalities[sic] may be high, and they can be won strategically." By the War Games philosophy that I established, the appearance of casualties makes the war lost. Plus, there's the lack of WMDs.