The Pentagon's Performance Since 1945: An Unsatisfactory Record

Disclaimer

This article aims to provide a balanced and analytical overview of U.S. military interventions since 1945. It is not intended to glorify, justify, or diminish the profound human suffering and loss experienced by those affected, including civilians, soldiers, and their families.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate strategic outcomes, lessons learned, and long-term impacts from a historical and operational perspective, and to evaluate the quality level of the Pentagon/White House professional leadership and engagement standards.

We recognize the complex and controversial nature of these events and respect the diverse opinions and emotional responses they may evoke. Our analysis is grounded in documented history and seeks to contribute to thoughtful discussions about military strategy, accountability, and the human costs of conflict.

Introduction

The Pentagon’s performance in military interventions since 1945 can be described as unsatisfactory, scoring approximately 5.4/10 in our evaluation. This rating aligns with what is generally considered “unsatisfactory” in academic terms, particularly since the benchmark for success, even in non-critical academic fields, typically starts at a minimum of 6/10 or 60%, with much higher expectations for professional disciplines. For instance:

In medicine, where life-critical decisions are at stake, the bar is set exceptionally high. In the U.S. and Canada, competitive applicants to medical schools usually have a GPA of 3.7 to 4.0 (on a 4.0 scale), translating to 90% or above in most grading systems. These rigorous standards are necessary because lives depend on the precision and quality of medical professionals, a principle equally applicable to military operations.

Even law school and engineering programs — fields not as directly life-critical as medicine — demand high performance.

Law school applicants are expected to demonstrate strong critical thinking, a GPA of 3.5+ (85%+), and LSAT scores in the 90th percentile.

Engineering programs require STEM-focused grades of 3.5+ (85%+), high quantitative test scores (90th percentile+), and technical experience.

‘Given that military operations are life-critical on a large scale, the standard for strategic success and operational precision should align with or even exceed the rigour applied in medicine, law, and engineering.’

The consequences of failure in military interventions — measured in human lives, regional stability, and global reputation — demand a level of excellence that surpasses mediocrity.

However, our report reveals that the Pentagon’s post-1945 record reflects more failures and mediocrity than achievements, undermining the standard of excellence expected from such a critical institution.

This report evaluates 15 major U.S. military interventions since 1945, analyzing their objectives, international consensus, outcomes, and broader impacts to derive this performance rating.

While some interventions were successful, the overall trend indicates significant shortcomings in achieving strategic goals and managing long-term consequences.

Here’s a comprehensive report summarizing U.S. military interventions since 1945 with our preferred level of detail, including allies, adversaries, reasons, international consensus, outcomes, and judgments:

U.S. Military Interventions Since 1945

1. Korean War (1950 – 1953)

Allies: UN forces (South Korea, UK, Canada, etc.)
Adversaries: North Korea, China, supported by the USSR
Reason: Repel North Korean invasion and prevent communist expansion
International Consensus: Broad UN support via Resolution 82. Communist nations opposed.
Outcome: South Korea was defended successfully; the war stabilized the Korean Peninsula but resulted in significant loss of life.
Judgment: Good decision. Long-term stability achieved for South Korea, though at high cost.

2. Vietnam War (1955 – 1975)

Allies: South Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, etc.
Adversaries: North Vietnam, Viet Cong, supported by the USSR and China
Reason: Contain communism under the Domino Theory
International Consensus: Divided. Initial ally support waned as global protests grew.
Outcome: Failure to stop the spread of communism, significant casualties, destabilization of Southeast Asia.
Judgment: Poor decision. High costs with no strategic success.

3. Invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965)

Allies: Inter-American Peace Force
Adversaries: Dominican rebels
Reason: Prevent a communist takeover during a civil war
International Consensus: Limited support; regional criticism.
Outcome: Stabilized the Dominican government, but strained U.S.-Latin American relations.
Judgment: Mixed. Short-term objectives met, but at the cost of regional goodwill.

4. Invasion of Grenada (1983)

Allies: Caribbean Peace Force
Adversaries: Marxist government, Cuban forces
Reason: Protect U.S. citizens and overthrow a Marxist regime
International Consensus: Widely condemned by the UN. Allies were divided.
Outcome: Swift regime change, but international relations were damaged.
Judgment: Mixed. Domestically successful but harmed global perception.

5. Invasion of Panama (1989 – 1990)

Allies: None
Adversaries: Manuel Noriega’s regime
Reason: Overthrow Noriega, combat drug trafficking, restore democracy
International Consensus: Mixed. Regional opposition, limited global support.
Outcome: Noriega ousted; Panama’s democratic governance restored.
Judgment: Good decision. Objectives achieved with minimal long-term consequences.

6. Gulf War (1990 – 1991)

Allies: Coalition of 35 nations (UK, France, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Adversaries: Iraq under Saddam Hussein
Reason: Liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion
International Consensus: Broad support with a UN mandate (Resolution 678)
Outcome: Swift military victory; Kuwait liberated with minimal casualties.
Judgment: Good decision. Exemplary coalition effort with successful outcomes.

7. Somali Civil War Intervention (1992 – 1995)

Allies: UNOSOM II (multi-nation coalition)
Adversaries: Somali warlords
Reason: Provide humanitarian aid and restore order
International Consensus: Initially supported, but criticism grew after mission failure.
Outcome: Lives saved early, but withdrawal left Somalia unstable.
Judgment: Mixed. Noble goals were undermined by operational failures.

8. Bosnian War Intervention (1995)

Allies: NATO forces
Adversaries: Bosnian Serb forces
Reason: Stop ethnic cleansing and enforce peace accords
International Consensus: Strong NATO and UN support
Outcome: Dayton Accords achieved peace; ethnic cleansing was halted.
Judgment: Good decision. Helped stabilize the Balkans.

9. Kosovo War (1999)

Allies: NATO forces
Adversaries: Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
Reason: Prevent ethnic cleansing of Albanians
International Consensus: Supported by NATO; opposed by Russia and China.
Outcome: Secured Kosovo’s autonomy and prevented further atrocities.
Judgment: Good decision. Effective humanitarian intervention.

10. War in Afghanistan (2001 – 2021)

Allies: NATO coalition
Adversaries: Taliban, Al-Qaeda
Reason: Dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove Taliban post-9/11
International Consensus: Broad initial support, but waned over time.
Outcome: Al-Qaeda weakened, but Afghanistan returned to Taliban control after U.S. withdrawal.
Judgment: Mixed. Early gains lost due to protracted conflict and chaotic exit.

11. Iraq War (2003 – 2011)

Allies: Coalition (UK, Australia, etc.)
Adversaries: Saddam Hussein, insurgent groups
Reason: Eliminate WMDs (later disproven) and depose Saddam
International Consensus: Controversial; lacked explicit UN authorization.
Outcome: Saddam removed, but region destabilized; ISIS emerged.
Judgment: Poor decision. High costs with devastating regional impact.

12. Intervention in Libya (2011)

Allies: NATO forces
Adversaries: Muammar Gaddafi’s regime
Reason: Protect civilians during Libyan Civil War
International Consensus: Supported by the UN but later criticized.
Outcome: Gaddafi removed, but Libya descended into chaos.
Judgment: Mixed. Achieved short-term goals but left a power vacuum.

13. Intervention against ISIS (2014 – present)

Allies: Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS
Adversaries: ISIS
Reason: Eliminate ISIS and stabilize Iraq and Syria
International Consensus: Broad coalition support.
Outcome: ISIS territory significantly reduced, but regional stability remains uncertain.
Judgment: Good decision. Effective counterterrorism effort.

14. Intervention in Yemen (2015 – present)

Allies: Saudi-led coalition
Adversaries: Houthi rebels
Reason: Support Yemeni government against insurgents
International Consensus: Criticized for humanitarian crises.
Outcome: Prolonged conflict with severe human suffering.
Judgment: Poor decision. Limited success and significant humanitarian costs.

15. Intervention in Niger (2013 – present)

Allies: Nigerien forces, French military
Adversaries: Boko Haram, ISIS affiliates
Reason: Counterterrorism in the Sahel
International Consensus: Moderate ally support.
Outcome: Counterterrorism gains with low costs.
Judgment: Good decision. Effective with minimal drawbacks.

Summary

Good Decisions: 6
Mixed Decisions: 5
Poor Decisions: 4

Overall Score

Using a weighted scoring system (Good = 8, Mixed = 5, Poor = 2):

Total = (6 × 8) + (5 × 5) + (4 × 2) = 81

Average = 81 / 15 = 5.4/10

Conclusion:

The USA’s post-1945 military interventions are professional failure on global conflict basis overall when professional standards are the criteria, with notable achievements offset by significant failures and long-term challenges.

SGT: “Thanks for sharing your perspective. We weren’t quite sure as to their level of professional performance, but there are always alarms about it online, as you say. So, we did an analysis this morning on this topic.

We investigated the Pentagon’s professional practices and strategic decisions since 1945.

Our findings indicate a pattern of significant errors & shortcomings, and a completely unsatisfactory professional practice, that given their global responsibility of securing life at scale, is a professional failure, which is aligned with your assessment.” https://x.com/SkillsGapTrain/status/1860037712730079691

Appendix:

Six Criteria for Evaluation

The framework we set up uses the following six areas to evaluate the professional performance of the Pentagon’s interventions:

Achievement of Objectives: Did the intervention accomplish its stated goals?
Long-Term Stability: Did it result in lasting peace or stability in the region?
Human and Economic Costs: What were the human (lives lost, suffering) and financial costs?
International Consensus: Was there global or allied support for the intervention?
Strategic and Geopolitical Consequences: Did the intervention improve or worsen the U.S.’s position on the global stage?
Sustainability of Outcomes: Were the achieved goals maintained, or did they collapse after withdrawal?

Note: ‘This is a basic 6 point framework. We can do a more advanced 8 to 20 point framework later, for greater precision. We might just do that, if we are forced to justify or defend this.’

The Pentagon’s Performance Since 1945: An Unsatisfactory Record