So a hypothesis, perhaps provocative this week. But I'm sure many of you have heard the common American refrain/lament that the "US wins the war, but loses the peace".
Upon reflection, however, it seems that the opposite is usually the case - the US tends to come away with a much better peace treaty than their military performance or position warrants.
War of Independence of 1775 - Washington was a famously bad general, terrible tactician, lost more battles than won, etc. This is only partly excused in that his army was basically bleh. It is no secret that, militarily, it was the French who won this war. But the Americans came out of the war with a sweet peace treaty in 1783 that basically gave them (almost) everything they wanted. So it was really won by American diplomats (both in Paris and London) than by anything the American military did in the field.
War of 1812 is even more obvious - the US lost - and lost badly - in almost every military encounter, with the peak humiliation of getting their capital burned down. But they get an incredibly favorable peace treaty at Ghent, totally unjustified by the military situation. Indeed, the 1814 Treaty of Ghent was much more favorable to the US than the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Massive diplomatic victory.
Mexican-American War of 1846 - OK, US did win the encounters militarily. But its military position at war's end was actually rather weak. The US army may have been in Mexico City, but it was far away from supply lines and in danger of being cut off and isolated there. Winfield Scott knew he was in trouble, that he would soon be facing a guerrilla war, and demanded a peace treaty that extricated him out of it. So despite the complaints of the hawkish government, the US was actually lucky to get what they wanted at that moment. If the war had gone longer, the military situation would have turned against them.
Spanish-American War of 1898 - US gets more territory in the peace treaty with Spain than the US military had actually conquered.
World War I - US military participation too little too late too limited to be of military significance, yet gets an outsized role at Versailles, with Wilson's 13 points being a massive influence on the treaty terms. Wilson gets much of what he wants - mitigation of terms, nation-state principle, League of Nations, etc. So another diplomatic victory disproportionate to actual military contribution.
World War II - OK, US had a significant role here. But of course the lion's share of the military victory (at least in Europe) goes to the Soviet Union. And Britain was not chopped liver either. Despite neocon propaganda to the contrary, in the settlement at Yalta, the US gave nothing away - it got to hold on to all its gains. Soviets also held their gains, but there was nothing the US could do to prevent that - the US gave nothing away. Finally, compared to the other allies it was a relatively low-cost victory for US - Brits & French lost empires, Soviets lost massive numbers, all their economies in tatters, while the US came out of it relatively unscathed, wealthier than ever and politically on top of the world. So we can say the resulting peace gains (compared to military cost) was relatively quite more favorable to the US than anyone else.
Korean War - US didn't win it militarily. Fought to a standstill. But the US's political goal - return to status quo ante - was achieved in the resulting "peace". So in a sense, it got all it wanted in the end without actually defeating North Korea.
Vietnam War - US lost the war militarily. No discussion there. But the peace was actually favorable relative to the military position - that is, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords were a victory comparatively - it gave the US adequate time for a relatively orderly disengagement and withdrawl of its troops. So US diplomats once again fared better than US military.
Cold War - US "won" the "war" with the Soviet Union without any military engagements - US military never defeated the Soviet military. US diplomatic supremacy confirmed.
Gulf War of 1991 - US won both military and the resulting peace. US was not aiming to topple Saddam Hussein. Got what it wanted.
So next estimates, jury still out:
Afghanistan War of 2001 - ?
Iraq War of 2003 - ?.
Upon reflection, however, it seems that the opposite is usually the case - the US tends to come away with a much better peace treaty than their military performance or position warrants.
War of Independence of 1775 - Washington was a famously bad general, terrible tactician, lost more battles than won, etc. This is only partly excused in that his army was basically bleh. It is no secret that, militarily, it was the French who won this war. But the Americans came out of the war with a sweet peace treaty in 1783 that basically gave them (almost) everything they wanted. So it was really won by American diplomats (both in Paris and London) than by anything the American military did in the field.
War of 1812 is even more obvious - the US lost - and lost badly - in almost every military encounter, with the peak humiliation of getting their capital burned down. But they get an incredibly favorable peace treaty at Ghent, totally unjustified by the military situation. Indeed, the 1814 Treaty of Ghent was much more favorable to the US than the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Massive diplomatic victory.
Mexican-American War of 1846 - OK, US did win the encounters militarily. But its military position at war's end was actually rather weak. The US army may have been in Mexico City, but it was far away from supply lines and in danger of being cut off and isolated there. Winfield Scott knew he was in trouble, that he would soon be facing a guerrilla war, and demanded a peace treaty that extricated him out of it. So despite the complaints of the hawkish government, the US was actually lucky to get what they wanted at that moment. If the war had gone longer, the military situation would have turned against them.
Spanish-American War of 1898 - US gets more territory in the peace treaty with Spain than the US military had actually conquered.
World War I - US military participation too little too late too limited to be of military significance, yet gets an outsized role at Versailles, with Wilson's 13 points being a massive influence on the treaty terms. Wilson gets much of what he wants - mitigation of terms, nation-state principle, League of Nations, etc. So another diplomatic victory disproportionate to actual military contribution.
World War II - OK, US had a significant role here. But of course the lion's share of the military victory (at least in Europe) goes to the Soviet Union. And Britain was not chopped liver either. Despite neocon propaganda to the contrary, in the settlement at Yalta, the US gave nothing away - it got to hold on to all its gains. Soviets also held their gains, but there was nothing the US could do to prevent that - the US gave nothing away. Finally, compared to the other allies it was a relatively low-cost victory for US - Brits & French lost empires, Soviets lost massive numbers, all their economies in tatters, while the US came out of it relatively unscathed, wealthier than ever and politically on top of the world. So we can say the resulting peace gains (compared to military cost) was relatively quite more favorable to the US than anyone else.
Korean War - US didn't win it militarily. Fought to a standstill. But the US's political goal - return to status quo ante - was achieved in the resulting "peace". So in a sense, it got all it wanted in the end without actually defeating North Korea.
Vietnam War - US lost the war militarily. No discussion there. But the peace was actually favorable relative to the military position - that is, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords were a victory comparatively - it gave the US adequate time for a relatively orderly disengagement and withdrawl of its troops. So US diplomats once again fared better than US military.
Cold War - US "won" the "war" with the Soviet Union without any military engagements - US military never defeated the Soviet military. US diplomatic supremacy confirmed.
Gulf War of 1991 - US won both military and the resulting peace. US was not aiming to topple Saddam Hussein. Got what it wanted.
So next estimates, jury still out:
Afghanistan War of 2001 - ?
Iraq War of 2003 - ?.
Last edited:
