The United States sucks at war, great at peace

[keynes2.0]

That leaves 2 wargoals, both of which were achieved. War was a complete success.

 

[TheExecuter]

Then that leaves only two war goals that were actually articulated prior to the war - an end to impressment (which didn't happen as a result of the war) and 'free trade' (which also didn't happen as a result of the war. By that metric the war was an absolute and total failure...

Of course war goals are rarely clearly expressed, particularly in a democracy, and in many (most) wars are so vague, even in the minds of the main belligerents, that actually working out what a 'win' is or how you can win is nearly impossible. So we look at what evidence we have from the statements recorded, public and private, and try to work out what people hoped to obtain from the war. If you do this it becomes very clear that those people who agitated most strongly and publicly for the war had some quite specific war goals that definitely included annexation as an objective.

No doubt, however I think you misunderstand the musings of a few on how the war might be won, and confuse that with occupation of the location will mean that it stays with respect to the peace treaty.

War goals:
1) Firmly establish independence from Great Britain - with respect to citizens rights and trade.
2) Open the right to trade with Continental Europe as a neutral
3) End to impressment and kidnapping of sailors from US ships - British ships would enter US territorial waters for the express purpose of impressing crew.
4) End the trade in weapons to the Indian tribes resisting American expansion in the midwest.
5) Disputed: Annex Canada (as a means to end Indian raids in the west and foster American expansionism) - since debunked in 2015 by Richard Maass.

The expanionist theme is a myth that goes against the...

relative consensus among experts that the primary US objective was the repeal of British maritime restrictions. (The US went to war) because six years of economic sanctions had failed to bring Britain to the negotiating table, and threatening the Royal Navy's Canadian supply base was their last hope. Leaders feared the domestic political consequences of (acquiring Canada). Notably, what limited expansionism there was focused on sparsely populated western lands rather than the more populous eastern settlements (of Canada).

Horsman points out that the desire for Canada did not cause the War of 1812. I.E.

The United States did not declare war because it wanted to obtain Canada, but the acquisition of Canada was viewed as a major collateral benefit of the conflict.

Opposition to annexation came from the south (which feared more free states) and from protestants, who feared giving French speaking catholics repbulican citizenship.

 

[Kovax]

Probably a better way of phrasing the original thread title would be "The US sucks at the start of wars, but turns into a juggernaut by the time peace is negotiated." The US has generally gone into wars with practically a skeleton crew for a military, and built up into a rather formidable army and navy over the course of almost every war. It typically did well in negotiations, despite the early poor showings, because continuing the war further would just have led to a stronger US military, and a lot more expense and manpower needed to continue the war against it.

England was in no danger of "losing" the War of 1812, but it had little prospect of "winning", and a distressing likelihood of an ongoing drain on its resources and strength. The Spanish-American War started with a woefully unprepared US Army. WWI began with US troops needing to buy weapons from France. WWII started out marginally better, with the US already laying the groundwork for mass production of necessary materials on an epic scale, but it wasn't really fully "armed" for a couple of years. It ended those wars in better shape than it started.

 

[keynes2.0]

That holds up through WWII then after WWII there is a military industrial complex.

 

[thedarkendstar]

That holds up through WWII then after WWII there is a military industrial complex.

True but there was no war the US fought after WW2 that need the country dedicated to total war.

 

[kaufenpreis]

This is the US's own Dolchstosslegende, debunked many times.

 

[The-Doc]

Much of this "winning the peace" comes down to the commercial position of the US. In almost all the examples you can think of the US has a lot of leverage to bring to the table due to either being necessary to finances and reconstruction, as in the world wars, or to the resumption of peaceful and open Atlantic/colonial trade with regard to the early conflicts with Great Britain. It also happens that the advent of the USA coincides with the development of the nation state and industrial warfare, forums where field engagements begin to matter less and less in the settlement of wars and world power.

I agree with the premise that the USA's victories haven't been on the battlefield, but in boardrooms and embassies.

That we haven't been particularly militaristic, or experienced in military matters for much of our history is somewhat of a national compliment in my book. For a country treated so well by geography and demography this should naturally be the case.