The adage in football suggests that a prevent defense often leads to a loss rather than a win, a principle that also rings true in the context of warfare. The self-imposed limitations by Democratic administrations on military engagements have emerged as significant barriers hindering the United States from securing victories in conflicts. This hesitation can be traced back to a legitimate but sometimes exaggerated fear of nuclear escalation, as well as a media landscape that often portrays military actions in a negative light. Since the era of Lyndon Johnson, Democratic presidents have seemingly avoided defining 'victory' as a primary objective in warfare, let alone working towards achieving it.

The Vietnam War serves as a poignant example of this failed strategy. The U.S. ultimately lost the conflict, largely due to a timid approach characterized by a strategy of gradual escalation and negotiations aimed at persuading an unyielding North Vietnamese government that it could not win. The administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were particularly influenced by an exaggerated fear of potential Soviet and Chinese intervention, resulting in a self-defeating restraint that negatively impacted U.S. objectives.

Fast forward to the present, the Biden administration's handling of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine showcases a similar pattern of caution, risking the valor demonstrated by Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. President Biden was slow to provide military aid, often offering insufficient support with multiple restrictions, due to an acute concern over Vladimir Putins threats. This hesitance has transformed what could have been a decisive conflict into a protracted war of attrition, where Russia, with its vast resources and unyielding leadership, holds an advantage. While caution in the face of nuclear escalation is undoubtedly prudent, it is crucial to maintain a balance between the perceived risks of escalation and the consequences of inaction.

Putin, along with leaders from Iran and China, have adeptly exploited the U.S.'s one-dimensional focus on the dangers of escalation, leveraging it to their strategic advantage. Most of Putins threats, including those concerning nuclear escalation, have proven to be largely bluster, aimed at undermining the resolve of both the Biden administration and NATO allies in Western Europe.

In stark contrast, the Axis of Tyrannycomprising nations such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Koreahas shown little restraint in pursuing its military objectives. They are driven by a commitment to victory in warfare, which is primarily impeded by the credibility and capability of free societies' military deterrents. Interestingly, the hyper-focus on escalation has not deterred more assertive leadership in other democracies. For instance, the administration of George H.W. Bush managed to achieve a decisive military victory in the first Gulf War, and similarly, George W. Bush's administration created conditions for a potential victory in Iraq until the Obama administration's premature withdrawal of troops undermined those gains.

The Biden administration's reticence is also evident in its response to Iran's provocations, especially concerning its aggressive posturing towards Israel following the atrocities committed on October 7, 2023. Unlike the Biden administration's cautious approach, Israel's military operations against Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian proxies have showcased decisive victories. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have severely compromised Irans air defenses, putting its nuclear ambitions at risk. Israel achieved these outcomes despite the Biden administrations hesitations regarding military decisiveness and the legitimacy of Israel's victory.

The significant defeats inflicted by Israel on Iranian-backed entities, combined with Russia's substantial losses in Ukraine, have contributed to a shift in the dynamics of regional power, notably leading to the unraveling of the Assad regime in Syria, which has become untenable due to lacking external support.

Thus, it remains clear that achieving victory in warfare is not only possible but also essential for open societies, even within the constraints of a nuclear age and a challenging media environment. Such victories require proper preparation, resolute determination, and inspired leadership.

However, the most substantial impediments to U.S. success in military conflicts seem to stem from the progressive priorities that dominate the Democratic Party. Contrary to the pessimistic narratives propagated by the liberal left and the isolationist factions within the Republican Party, the United States possesses ample resources to engage effectively in critical geopolitical regions. The key is to abandon past practices that have hindered military effectiveness: underfunding defense, overregulating the economy, and misallocating domestic resources while neglecting our defense industrial base.

Moreover, the Pentagon has been hampered by a sluggish procurement process that fails to produce the necessary weapons efficiently and economically. The U.S. can afford to allocate five percent of its GDP towards defense to maintain a posture capable of deterring wars and winning them at minimal cost and risk. Rethinking spending priorities, revitalizing our military industrial base, reforming the Pentagon, and fostering private sector innovation are all necessary steps to ensure military supremacy.

It is essential to eradicate any remnants of woke ideology that undermine our confidence in our ability to engage in and win wars. As military strategist Carl von Clausewitz wisely noted, war is simply an extension of politics by other means. While technology, domestic politics, and moral sensibilities will influence strategic outcomes, they should not dictate our capacity to deter or triumph in military conflicts when deterrence inevitably falters.

The onus is on the United States to recognize that victory is not only desirable but attainable. The future of military engagement and the success of U.S. military objectives depend largely on our political will and commitment to achieving those goals.