Should the U.S. fight wars differently?

A cellphone photo shows an armored vehicle belonging to Iraqi security forces in flames Tuesday, after hundreds of militants launched a major assault in Mosul. Some 500,000 Iraqis have fled their homes in the large city since militants took control. AFP/Getty Images

Tom Engelhardt argues that the U.S. approach to war is pointless. “The United States has been at war — major boots-on-the-ground conflicts and minor interventions, firefights, air strikes, drone assassination campaigns, occupations, special ops raids, proxy conflicts, and covert actions — nearly nonstop since the Vietnam War began. That’s more than half a century of experience with war, American-style, and yet few in our world bother to draw the obvious conclusions.”

Here are a handful of the conclusions Engelhardt has arrived at:

1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the U.S. military is incapable of winning its wars.

5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the U.S. military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

Today’s Question: Should the U.S. fight wars differently?