Category Archives: History and Socio-Political Analytics

Topics relating to historical events, philosophies of governments, etc.

How This Blog Is Being Threatened

For over a decade, the internet held a simple promise for creators: if you make good, helpful, or entertaining stuff, people will find it, and you can earn a living. Bloggers, independent writers, and small publishers invested thousands of hours researching, writing, and sharing their passion and expertise. The deal was straightforward: we provide quality content, search engines help people find us, and the resulting visitor traffic allows us to earn a small amount from advertising or affiliate links.

That deal is now broken. Two massive technological shifts, search engine features and artificial intelligence, are quietly siphoning the lifeblood from independent creators, threatening to turn the vibrant, diverse web into a bland echo chamber.

Think about the last time you Googled a simple question, like “how many ounces in a cup?” or “who was the 16th U.S. President?” The answer likely appeared in a neat box right at the top of the search results. Convenient, right?

For the user, yes. For the creator who wrote the article that Google pulled that answer from, it’s a disaster. This is called a “zero-click search.” You get the information you need without ever having to click on a link and visit a website.

Every time this happens, the creator of that information is cut out of the loop. We don’t get the page view, which means the ads on our site aren’t seen, and we earn nothing for our work. We did the research and wrote the article, only for a tech giant to skim the answer off the top and present it as their own, depriving us of the traffic that keeps our sites running. It’s like a library that reads you a single paragraph from a book, so you never have to check it out and the author never gets credit.

AI: The New Content Machine Built on Our Work

The second, and perhaps bigger, threat is the rise of generative AI like ChatGPT. These programs are incredibly powerful. You can ask them to write an essay, plan a vacation, or summarize a complex topic, and they’ll generate a surprisingly coherent answer in seconds.

But where does this AI get its information? It learns by reading, or “training on,” a massive snapshot of the internet. It reads our blog posts, our news articles, our how-to guides, and our reviews. It digitally digests the sum of human knowledge that people like us have painstakingly put online.

When you ask an AI for information, it doesn’t send you to the original sources. It combines what it has learned from thousands of creators and presents a brand-new piece of text. The original writers, the ones who did the actual work, become invisible. We are not credited, we are not compensated, and we are certainly not sent any traffic. Our content is being used as free raw material to build a product that directly competes with us, and it’s happening on an industrial scale.

Why This Matters to You

You might think this is just a problem for a few bloggers. But the long-term consequences will affect everyone who uses the internet. If independent creators can no longer afford to produce high-quality, niche content, they will simply stop.

The passionate hobbyists who review products with brutal honesty, the independent journalists who uncover local stories, and the experts who write detailed guides will disappear. What will be left? A web dominated by mega-corporations and AI-generated articles that are often bland, repetitive, and sometimes just plain wrong. The internet will lose its human touch, its diverse voices, and its soul.

We are at a critical point where the very architecture of how we find information online is undermining the people who create it.


A Direct Appeal

If you found this article helpful, or if you value the kind of independent content we strive to create, please consider supporting our work. The traditional models of funding online content are failing, and direct support from readers like you is becoming the only way for many of us to survive. Your contribution, no matter the size, is a lifeline that allows us to continue researching and writing.

Please help us keep the lights on and our voice alive by making a contribution through our donations page – click here. Thank you for your support.

Fifty Years of Conflict: An Analytical Review of Lessons Learned in U.S. Military Operations 1973-2023

The history of the United States military over the past half-century is a narrative of profound transformation, marked by catastrophic failures, stunning triumphs, and the persistent, often painful, process of institutional learning. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, this period represents a continuous, and at times cyclical, effort to understand and master the application of military force in a world of ever-changing threats. This report presents an analytical review of this arc, examining the key lessons derived from major U.S. conflicts and operations since the end of American involvement in Vietnam. The central thesis of this analysis is that while the U.S. military has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for adaptation and learning at the tactical and operational levels, it has consistently struggled with the strategic dimension of warfare—specifically, the translation of battlefield success into durable and favorable political outcomes.

This 50-year period can be understood through three distinct, albeit overlapping, strategic eras. The first, the post-Vietnam reckoning, was a period of introspection and fundamental reform, driven by the institutional trauma of defeat and the near-collapse of the force. The painful lessons from Vietnam, the disastrous Iran hostage rescue attempt, and the deeply flawed intervention in Grenada were the necessary catalysts for the most significant military reforms in modern American history, forging a professional, all-volunteer, and truly joint force.

The second era, corresponding with the “unipolar moment” of the 1990s, saw this rebuilt force achieve unprecedented conventional dominance. The overwhelming victory in the 1991 Persian Gulf War seemed to vindicate the new American way of war. Yet, this decade was also marked by the messy, frustrating, and politically complex challenges of humanitarian intervention and “operations other than war” in places like Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans. These missions exposed the limits of conventional military power and forced the U.S. to grapple with the complexities of nation-building and peacekeeping, often with ambiguous results.

The third and most recent era began with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which plunged the United States into two decades of protracted, asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. These “forever wars” represented a catastrophic failure to internalize or remember the core strategic lessons of Vietnam. Despite immense expenditures of blood and treasure, and despite remarkable tactical innovations in counter-insurgency, these campaigns ultimately failed to achieve their strategic objectives, leaving behind a legacy of instability and questioning the very utility of large-scale military intervention. This report will trace this arc, dissecting the key lessons—what to do and what not to do—from each major conflict, demonstrating how the lessons of one war often shaped, and sometimes misshaped, the conduct of the next.


Part I: The Post-Vietnam Reckoning and the Rebuilt Force (1975-1989)

The period between the fall of Saigon and the invasion of Panama was arguably the most transformative in the modern history of the U.S. military. It began with a “hollow force” demoralized by defeat and plagued by systemic internal problems.1 It ended with a highly professional, technologically advanced, and newly joint force poised for unprecedented conventional dominance. This transformation was not the result of a single visionary plan but was forged in the crucible of painful, often humiliating, operational failures. These failures provided the undeniable impetus for sweeping reforms that overcame decades of institutional inertia and inter-service rivalry, laying the foundation for the military that would fight and win in the decades to come.

1.1 The Enduring Shadow of Vietnam (1964-1975)

The Vietnam War serves as the foundational event for any analysis of modern U.S. military history. The American failure in Southeast Asia was not, at its core, a failure of tactical execution on the battlefield; it was a profound strategic and political miscalculation from which the military and the nation would draw lessons for generations.2 The United States intervened with a staggering ignorance of Vietnam’s history, culture, and language, fundamentally misinterpreting a nationalist civil war and social revolution as a simple front in the global Cold War against communism.3 This ignorance was compounded by an institutional arrogance—a belief that America’s overwhelming military superiority, its advanced technology and immense firepower, could compensate for a flawed political strategy and force a favorable outcome.3

This approach was doomed from the start. The United States committed its power in support of a South Vietnamese government, beginning with the Diem regime, that lacked popular legitimacy and commanded little loyalty outside a small Catholic minority.3 The war was, as some analysts have concluded, “lost politically before it ever began militarily”.3 Military action, detached from a viable political objective, proved counterproductive. The heavy-handed tactics of the Saigon regime, combined with the destructive impact of American firepower, often drove the very population the U.S. sought to win over into the arms of the National Liberation Front (NLF).3

Beyond the strategic failure, the war precipitated an existential crisis within the U.S. military itself. The pressures of a protracted and increasingly unpopular war on a conscripted, racially integrated force were immense. The military, which had prided itself on seeing only one color—olive drab—was forced to confront deep-seated racial tensions that erupted into violence on bases at home and in the field.2 The failing war effort led to a catastrophic breakdown in discipline, manifesting in high rates of soldiers going AWOL, widespread drug and alcohol abuse, and even instances of “combat refusal,” where units would not engage the enemy.2 This internal decay reached a point where it began to “challenge the ability of the US Army to fulfill its mission of national defense,” a crisis of the first order for the institution.2

The lessons drawn from this experience were deep and lasting. The so-called “Vietnam Syndrome” was not merely a public aversion to foreign entanglements; it was an institutional imperative within the military to prevent a repeat of this internal breakdown. The establishment of the All-Volunteer Force was a direct response, aimed at creating a more professional and disciplined military. Concurrently, the strategic lessons coalesced into what would later be articulated as the Powell Doctrine: the conviction that the U.S. should only commit forces to combat when vital national interests are at stake, when there are clear and achievable objectives, when there is broad public and congressional support, and when overwhelming force can be applied to achieve a decisive victory.4 This doctrine was designed not only to ensure victory but to protect the military institution itself from being gradually destroyed by another ambiguous, protracted, and politically unsupported conflict. This created a powerful and understandable institutional preference for short, decisive, high-intensity conventional wars—and a deep-seated aversion to messy, political, and open-ended counter-insurgencies. This preference, born from the trauma of Vietnam, would prove to be a strategic vulnerability when the U.S. was inevitably drawn back into precisely those kinds of conflicts decades later.

1.2 Reforming the Machine: From Desert One (1980) to Grenada (1983)

If Vietnam exposed the strategic bankruptcy of the U.S. military, two smaller operations in the following decade laid bare its profound operational and organizational dysfunction. Operation Eagle Claw, the failed 1980 attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran, and Operation Urgent Fury, the 1983 invasion of Grenada, were pivotal events. Though tactical in scale, their failures were so glaring and public that they provided the undeniable evidence needed to force fundamental, and long-overdue, structural reforms upon the Department of Defense.

Operation Eagle Claw was an unmitigated disaster that starkly revealed the decrepitude of the post-Vietnam “hollow force”.1 The mission, though courageous in its conception, was plagued by a cascade of failures. An ad-hoc command structure was created for the mission, bypassing established contingency planning staffs in the name of security. This resulted in ill-defined lines of authority and a complete lack of a coherent joint training plan.1 The obsession with operational security (OPSEC) became self-defeating; information was so tightly compartmentalized that planners could not conduct independent reviews, and the various service components never conducted a full, integrated rehearsal before launching the mission.1 This lack of coordination proved fatal at the Desert One staging area in Iran. Equipment, particularly the RH-53D helicopters that were not designed for such a mission, failed under operational stress.1 Communications between services were fractured, and when a collision between a helicopter and a C-130 transport aircraft caused a fire, the chaotic scene lacked a clear on-scene commander to restore order.1 The mission was aborted in tragedy, leaving behind dead servicemen, abandoned aircraft, and compromised classified materials.1

Three years later, the invasion of Grenada, while ultimately successful in achieving its objectives, was another showcase of inter-service dysfunction. The operation was marred by “persistent interservice rivalries; flawed communications; excessive secrecy; and… ‘unforgivable blunders’ in vital intelligence-gathering”.6 There was virtually no intelligence available on the island; the CIA had no assets on the ground, and the only maps available to invading forces were tourist maps lacking precise military grid coordinates.6 The command-and-control structure was convoluted and improvised at the last minute.6 Communication systems between the services were incompatible, leading to an Army unit being unable to call for naval gunfire support and resorting to using a commercial AT&T credit card to call back to Fort Bragg to request air support.6 In a now-infamous incident that epitomized the depth of the problem, a senior Marine officer initially refused a request to transport Army Rangers on Marine helicopters, relenting only after being directly ordered to do so by a higher authority.6

These two operations, though small, were disproportionately influential because their flaws were so fundamental and undeniable. They demonstrated that the U.S. armed services, as structured, could not effectively fight together as a coherent team. The public humiliation of Desert One and the near-disaster in Grenada created the political will in Congress to overcome decades of entrenched service parochialism and resistance from the Pentagon. The direct result was the landmark Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This legislation fundamentally reshaped the military by strengthening the authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified combatant commanders, forcing the services to operate jointly. In parallel, the lessons from Eagle Claw gave direct impetus to the creation of the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) in 1987, unifying the various special operations forces under a single command with its own budget and authority.1 These reforms were not merely bureaucratic shuffling; they were the essential bedrock upon which the operational successes of the next decade, particularly in Panama and the Persian Gulf, were built. The hard-won lesson was that jointness was not an optional extra or a matter of preference; it was an absolute prerequisite for success in modern warfare.

1.3 Limited Force and Ambiguous Missions: Lebanon (1982-84), Libya (1986), and the Iran-Iraq War (1980s)

The 1980s also saw the United States engage in a series of interventions and proxy engagements that highlighted the immense difficulty of applying limited military force to achieve complex and often ambiguous political objectives. These operations in Lebanon, Libya, and the Persian Gulf provided cautionary lessons about mission clarity, the nature of peacekeeping, and the unintended long-term consequences of strategic choices.

The deployment of U.S. Marines to Beirut in 1982 as part of a Multinational Force is a tragic case study in the failure of peacekeeping without a peace to keep.9 The Marines were inserted into the maelstrom of the Lebanese Civil War with an “unclear mandate”.10 Initially tasked with overseeing the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), their mission evolved, but their status remained ambiguous. The Reagan administration misread the complex sectarian dynamics, viewing the conflict through a simplistic Cold War lens and backing the pro-Israeli Christian factions, which fatally compromised the U.S. force’s neutrality.11 As a result, the Marines went from being perceived as neutral peacekeepers to being seen as active participants in the conflict, making them a target for factions backed by Syria and Iran.10 This culminated in the catastrophic bombing of the Marine barracks on October 23, 1983, which killed 241 American servicemen. The U.S. subsequently withdrew its forces, leaving behind a power vacuum that was filled by Syria and its Iranian-backed proxy, Hezbollah, which evolved from a small terrorist cell into a formidable regional power.10 The primary lesson from Lebanon was stark: a military force deployed with an ambiguous mission into a multi-sided civil war, without the political leverage or will to impose a settlement, will inevitably become a target and its mission will fail.

In contrast, the 1986 bombing of Libya, Operation El Dorado Canyon, was a mission with a much clearer, albeit limited, objective: to punish the Qaddafi regime for its role in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. service members and to deter future acts of state-sponsored terrorism.12 The operation was a remarkable feat of military logistics and execution. Denied overflight rights by key European allies like France and Spain, U.S. Air Force F-111s based in the United Kingdom had to fly a grueling 6,400-mile round trip, requiring multiple aerial refuelings, to strike targets in Tripoli and Benghazi alongside Navy aircraft from carriers in the Mediterranean.13 The strikes were judged to be a tactical success and did lead to a reduction in Libyan-sponsored terrorism against American targets in the short term.12 However, the operation also highlighted the political costs of unilateralism and provoked asymmetric retaliation, including the murder of American and British hostages in Lebanon and the alleged Libyan involvement in the later bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.14 The lesson was that while punitive strikes can achieve short-term deterrence, they do not resolve the underlying political conflict and can invite retaliation through unconventional means.

Perhaps the most consequential U.S. involvement of the decade was its indirect role in the Iran-Iraq War. Following the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, U.S. policy was driven by the imperative to prevent an Iranian victory and the expansion of Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary theocracy.15 This led the Reagan administration to “tilt” toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, providing Baghdad with billions in economic aid, dual-use technology, and critical satellite intelligence to thwart Iranian offensives.15 This was a brutally pragmatic policy, choosing to back one dictator to contain another in a war where there were no “good guys”.15 This support was instrumental in preventing an Iraqi collapse and enabling Saddam to fight Iran to a stalemate. However, the policy had severe long-term consequences. It empowered Saddam Hussein, whose military emerged from the war as one of the largest and most battle-hardened in the region.17 The immense debt Iraq incurred during the war, combined with this newfound military power and a sense of grievance against its neighbors, were direct contributing factors to its decision to invade Kuwait in 1990.17 The U.S. policy in the 1980s thus provides a textbook example of “blowback,” demonstrating that the strategic partner of today can, as a direct result of that partnership, become the primary adversary of tomorrow.

1.4 A Paradigm of Decisive Force? Operation Just Cause, Panama (1989)

The U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989, Operation Just Cause, stands as the capstone of the military’s post-Vietnam transformation. It was the first large-scale combat test of the joint force forged by the Goldwater-Nichols reforms and was widely seen as a resounding success, a model of how to apply military power effectively to achieve clear political aims.18 The operation was launched with four unambiguous and limited objectives: to safeguard the lives of American citizens, to restore the democratically elected government, to apprehend dictator Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty.20

The execution of the operation was a testament to the new emphasis on jointness and planning. It was a complex, multi-service assault involving nearly 27,000 troops, with airborne, air-assault, and special operations forces striking two dozen targets simultaneously across the country in a classic coup de main.18 The planning was extensive and detailed, and the forces were well-rehearsed, contributing to a swift and decisive military victory.18 The combat phase was largely over within a matter of days, achieving its objectives at a relatively low cost of 23 American combat deaths.22

Operation Just Cause was hailed as the ultimate vindication of the post-Vietnam reforms. It was everything that Vietnam, Eagle Claw, and Grenada were not: swift, decisive, overwhelmingly powerful, and successful in achieving its stated political goals in the short term.22 The operation appeared to offer a new paradigm for the post-Cold War era: the clean, surgical application of military force to remove a rogue regime and restore democracy.

However, the very success of Operation Just Cause embedded a dangerous and misleading lesson. The operation took place in a uniquely permissive and favorable environment. The U.S. military had a massive pre-existing presence in Panama, deep familiarity with the terrain, and extensive intelligence on the Panamanian Defense Forces (PDF), which it had trained for years.21 The PDF was a small and relatively weak adversary, and crucially, the Panamanian population largely welcomed the American intervention and offered no resistance.21 It was a unilateral operation, unencumbered by the complexities of coalition warfare.21

The danger was that U.S. military and political leaders mistook an operational success in a uniquely favorable context for a universally applicable strategic template. The “Panama model” reinforced the institutional preference for using overwhelming force to achieve rapid regime change, creating an illusion that such interventions could be quick, low-cost, and decisive. This model heavily influenced the mindset that planned the 1991 Gulf War and, more catastrophically, shaped the fatally optimistic assumptions for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that later conflict, the U.S. would discover that the post-conflict environment was infinitely more complex and hostile, and that the welcoming crowds of Panama City would not be replicated in Baghdad. The lesson taken from Panama was that overwhelming force works; the critical lesson that was missed was that the unique political and social conditions of the battlespace are often more decisive than the balance of military power.


Part II: The “New World Order” and Its Discontents (1990-2001)

The collapse of the Soviet Union left the United States as the world’s sole superpower, ushering in a decade of American military primacy. This period, often termed the “unipolar moment,” was defined by a stark contrast in the application of U.S. military power. It began with the spectacular conventional triumph of the First Gulf War, which seemed to confirm the dominance of the American way of war. However, the remainder of the decade was dominated by messy, frustrating, and politically fraught humanitarian interventions. These “Operations Other Than War” in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans challenged the neat paradigms of the Powell Doctrine and forced a reluctant U.S. military to grapple with the ambiguous challenges of peacekeeping, stability operations, and coercive diplomacy, generating a new set of complex and often contradictory lessons.

2.1 The Powell Doctrine Vindicated: The First Gulf War (1991)

Operation Desert Storm, the U.S.-led campaign to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, was the textbook application and triumphant vindication of the military doctrine forged in the ashes of Vietnam.4 Every element of the Powell Doctrine was meticulously implemented. The objective was clear, limited, and broadly supported: the expulsion of the Iraqi army from Kuwait, not the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.4 An immense international coalition of 34 nations was painstakingly assembled, securing legitimacy through the United Nations and ensuring that the burden was shared.4 Widespread domestic public and congressional support was cultivated and maintained throughout the crisis.4 Finally, and most critically, overwhelming military force was deployed to the theater before hostilities began, ensuring a decisive advantage.4

The 100-hour ground war was a stunning demonstration of the effectiveness of the reformed, joint U.S. military. The technological superiority of American weapon systems—from stealth fighters and cruise missiles to GPS navigation and advanced sensors—was on full display, leading many to herald a “Revolution in Military Affairs”.24 The seamless coordination of air, land, and sea forces, a direct result of the Goldwater-Nichols reforms, allowed the coalition to execute a complex “left hook” maneuver that enveloped and destroyed the Iraqi army in Kuwait with remarkably few coalition casualties.24 The campaign adhered strictly to its pre-defined exit strategy: once Kuwait was liberated, major combat operations ceased.4

Yet, the very scale of this success embedded two flawed and consequential lessons that would profoundly, and negatively, shape U.S. military thought for the next two decades. The first was an over-learning of the role of technology. The lightning victory created a powerful narrative that future wars could be won cleanly and decisively through “exquisite and precise munitions” and information dominance.25 This belief in a technology-driven “Revolution in Military Affairs” led to a strategic focus on concepts like “shock and awe” and “effects-based operations,” which privileged top-down, precision targeting over all else. This, in turn, justified a continued reduction in the size of the force, particularly the Army, creating a military that was optimized for short, high-tech conventional wars but lacked the mass and manpower required for the labor-intensive stability and counter-insurgency operations that would define the post-9/11 era.25

The second flawed lesson stemmed from the decision not to continue the advance to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power. At the time, this decision was strategically sound; it was consistent with the limited UN mandate, was essential for holding the fragile Arab coalition together, and avoided the “mission creep” the Powell Doctrine was designed to prevent.4 However, it was a decision born of operational considerations, not long-term strategic foresight. Leaving Saddam in power resulted in a decade of costly containment, including the enforcement of no-fly zones and crippling sanctions, and created the “unfinished business” that served as a primary justification for the 2003 invasion.17 The legacy of Desert Storm is therefore deeply dualistic. It was a brilliant operational success that validated the post-Vietnam reforms, but it also fostered a dangerous strategic hubris. It taught the U.S. military how to win a conventional war perfectly, but in doing so, it also taught the wrong lessons about the nature of future conflicts and reinforced the critical distinction between defining a military end state—the liberation of Kuwait—and achieving a durable political outcome.

2.2 The Quagmire of Humanitarian Intervention: Somalia (1992-93)

The U.S. intervention in Somalia began as a mission of mercy and ended as a strategic cautionary tale that would haunt American foreign policy for a decade. In late 1992, President George H.W. Bush launched Operation Restore Hope, a U.S.-led intervention to secure humanitarian corridors and end a devastating famine caused by civil war.26 The initial phase of the operation was a success; U.S. forces secured the ports and airfields, allowing for the delivery of massive amounts of food aid that saved an estimated quarter of a million lives.27

The problems began in 1993, when the mission was handed over to the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). The mandate shifted from humanitarian relief to a far more ambitious and ambiguous project of nation-building, which included disarming the Somali warlords.27 This “mission creep” fundamentally altered the nature of the intervention. U.S. forces, now operating in support of the UN, were drawn into a conflict with the powerful faction of warlord Mohamed Farah Aidid.29 The mission escalated from protecting food convoys to actively hunting Aidid and his lieutenants.

This new phase culminated in the disastrous Battle of Mogadishu on October 3, 1993, an event seared into public consciousness as “Black Hawk Down.” A raid by U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force operators to capture two of Aidid’s top aides went horribly wrong when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by rocket-propelled grenades.30 The ensuing 18-hour firefight in the streets of Mogadishu resulted in 18 American deaths and 73 wounded.30 The mission suffered from critical planning failures; commanders on the ground had requested heavy armor and AC-130 gunship support for such operations, but these requests were denied at higher levels in Washington.30 The U.S. forces, overly confident in their technological superiority, had dangerously underestimated the enemy’s capabilities and will to fight.30

The strategic fallout from this tactical engagement was immense and immediate. The graphic television images of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets by a jubilant mob created a powerful political backlash in the United States.29 Public support for the mission evaporated overnight, and President Clinton quickly announced a withdrawal of all U.S. forces. The lesson learned by a generation of policymakers was not how to conduct complex stability operations more effectively, but to avoid them entirely, especially in places deemed of peripheral strategic interest. This “Mogadishu effect” or “Black Hawk Down syndrome” created a profound aversion to committing U.S. ground troops and accepting casualties in humanitarian crises. This policy of risk-aversion had direct and tragic consequences, most notably influencing the Clinton administration’s decision to actively avoid intervention during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where U.S. officials refused to even use the word “genocide” for fear it would create a moral obligation to act.32 The Somalia experience powerfully demonstrated how a single, televised tactical event, amplified by the “CNN effect,” could dramatically constrain U.S. foreign policy and dictate grand strategy for years to come.29

2.3 Coercive Diplomacy and Permissive Entry: Haiti (1994)

The 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti, Operation Uphold Democracy, offered a stark contrast to the bloody debacle in Somalia and appeared to present a more successful model for post-Cold War crisis management. The mission’s objective was to oust the military junta that had overthrown the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 1991 and restore him to power.33 The Clinton administration pursued a dual-track strategy: engaging in diplomatic efforts while simultaneously preparing for a full-scale military invasion.33

The military preparations were extensive. An invasion force of nearly 25,000 personnel from all services, backed by two aircraft carriers, was assembled and made ready to launch.33 The threat of this overwhelming force was made credible and explicit to the Haitian junta. As the invasion was literally in the air, a last-ditch diplomatic mission to Haiti led by former President Jimmy Carter, Senator Sam Nunn, and General Colin Powell succeeded in convincing the junta leaders to step down and allow U.S. forces to enter peacefully.33 This eleventh-hour agreement required remarkable discipline and flexibility from the invading force, which had to pivot “from a war mentality to a peacekeeping mindset overnight”.36

In its immediate aims, the operation was a clear success. The junta was removed, President Aristide was restored to power, and it was all accomplished with no U.S. casualties.37 The operation was widely seen as a masterclass in coercive diplomacy, demonstrating the powerful synergy that can be achieved when diplomatic engagement is backed by a credible and imminent threat of military force.35

However, the long-term legacy of the intervention is far more ambiguous and serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of external power in nation-building. While the U.S. military could successfully change the government in Port-au-Prince, it could not fundamentally alter the deep-seated political, social, and economic problems that have plagued Haiti for centuries. The intervention was described by one key participant as a “short-lived success” that “achieved all of its objectives with no casualties within a very short time-frame. But it didn’t take hold”.37 More critical analyses argue that the operation was a “major failure” in the long run, as it did not democratize Haiti and may have contributed to its enduring problems.37 American support for Aristide’s return was made contingent on his acceptance of structural adjustment policies from the IMF and World Bank, which opened Haiti’s fragile economy to foreign competition and arguably deepened its economic dependency.37 Ten years later, in 2004, the U.S. was involved in another international intervention after Aristide was again overthrown.37 The lesson from Haiti is that while the military can effectively create a secure and permissive environment for political change, it cannot impose that change from the outside. The “success” of the operation, defined by its low cost and lack of casualties, masked the underlying strategic failure of the nation-building project. This created a dangerous illusion that military intervention could be a clean, surgical, and politically palatable tool for democracy promotion, an idea that ignored the deep, resource-intensive, and generational commitment that such transformations actually require.

2.4 The Balkans: The Challenge of Graduated Escalation (Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999)

The brutal wars of Yugoslav succession in the 1990s presented the United States and its NATO allies with their most significant security challenge in Europe since the end of the Cold War. The response was characterized by years of hesitation, half-measures, and a gradual, reluctant escalation that ultimately led to two major military interventions, each providing distinct and crucial lessons about the use of force.

For over three years, the international response to the war in Bosnia was one of “muddling through,” marked by a lack of political will to intervene decisively.38 The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) was deployed as a traditional peacekeeping force, but it was lightly armed, had a restrictive mandate, and was wholly unsuited for a situation where there was no peace to keep.38 It proved ineffective at stopping the widespread ethnic cleansing and, in late May 1995, nearly 400 UN peacekeepers were taken hostage by Bosnian Serb forces after limited NATO air strikes, effectively neutralizing the UN force.38 The turning point came in July 1995 with the Srebrenica massacre, the single worst act of genocide in Europe since World War II, which shamed the West into action.38 The U.S. finally took a leadership role, spearheading a new strategy that combined a decisive, three-week NATO air campaign (Operation Deliberate Force) with a major ground offensive by the Croatian and Bosnian armies. This combined military pressure forced the Serbs to the negotiating table and led to the Dayton Peace Accords.38 The lessons from Bosnia were clear and painful: “early intervention may be more politically difficult in the short term, but is much less costly in the long run,” and “when you do intervene, there is no point in being half-hearted”.39

The intervention in Bosnia also led to a long, costly, and open-ended peacekeeping mission (IFOR, later SFOR) involving 60,000 troops, including 20,000 Americans.32 This experience solidified what became known as the “Pottery Barn Rule” of intervention (“You break it, you own it”), a concept articulated by then-General Colin Powell to President George W. Bush before the 2003 Iraq War.32 The lesson was that military intervention creates an implicit ownership of the post-conflict outcome and requires a long-term commitment to stabilization and rebuilding.

This realization, combined with the casualty-aversion stemming from Somalia, heavily influenced the U.S. and NATO approach to the Kosovo crisis in 1999. To stop Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, NATO launched Operation Allied Force, a 78-day air campaign conducted without the commitment of ground troops.41 The campaign was a “victory without triumph”.41 It ultimately succeeded in its primary political objective of forcing Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo, and it did so with zero NATO combat fatalities.41 However, the air-only strategy was unable to prevent the humanitarian catastrophe on the ground; in fact, the Serbian campaign of murder and expulsion accelerated dramatically after the bombing began.41 The campaign also exposed a massive and alarming capabilities gap between the United States, which conducted the vast majority of precision strikes, and its European allies, who lacked critical assets like precision-guided munitions, electronic jamming aircraft, and strategic airlift.41

The Balkan wars thus produced a complex and somewhat contradictory set of lessons. Bosnia taught that half-measures fail and that intervention incurs a long-term ground commitment. Kosovo, however, seemed to offer a seductive new model: the achievement of major political objectives through standoff precision airpower alone, with no friendly casualties. This “Kosovo model” appeared to be the perfect solution, a way to circumvent both the quagmire of Vietnam and the casualty-aversion of Mogadishu. It represented a quest for a cost-free, risk-free form of warfare. This, however, was a strategic illusion that discounted the unique circumstances of the conflict and the fact that the air campaign’s success was heavily dependent on the concurrent threat of a ground invasion and the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army on the ground. This flawed model of airpower-led regime change would be disastrously misapplied in Libya a decade later.


Part III: The Post-9/11 Era and the “Forever Wars” (2001-Present)

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, fundamentally reoriented American grand strategy and inaugurated a new era of military conflict. The ensuing “Global War on Terrorism” led to the two longest wars in U.S. history, in Afghanistan and Iraq. These campaigns, defined by protracted counter-insurgency, ambitious nation-building, and ambiguous outcomes, represented a catastrophic failure to heed the most vital strategic lessons learned over the preceding 50 years. Despite immense sacrifices and unprecedented expenditure, these wars failed to achieve their ultimate political goals, forcing a painful reassessment of the limits of American military power. The subsequent evolution of the fight against jihadist groups in Libya and Syria reflects a difficult, ongoing attempt to apply these hard-won lessons.

3.1 Afghanistan (2001-2021): The Longest War

The war in Afghanistan began as a swift, decisive, and widely supported response to the 9/11 attacks. Operation Enduring Freedom, launched in October 2001, combined U.S. special operations forces and CIA paramilitary officers with the local Northern Alliance, all supported by overwhelming American airpower. This model of warfare proved spectacularly successful in its initial phase, leading to the collapse of the Taliban regime in a matter of weeks.42

However, in the immediate aftermath of this victory, the United States made its first critical strategic error. Between late 2001 and 2004, with the Taliban defeated and scattered, dozens of its senior leaders offered various forms of surrender and reconciliation in exchange for amnesty. The Bush administration, however, rejected these overtures, choosing to exclude the Taliban from the new political order being forged in Kabul.42 This decision, made at the moment of America’s maximum military and political leverage, squandered a crucial opportunity to end the war on favorable terms and may have been the single most significant factor in ensuring the conflict would last for two decades.

Following this missed opportunity, the U.S. mission in Afghanistan suffered from what has been termed “strategic drift”.43 The initial, limited counter-terrorism objective of destroying Al-Qaeda expanded into a massive, unfocused, and open-ended nation-building and counter-insurgency campaign with no clear, coherent, or consistently applied strategy.44 The entire effort was crippled by a staggering and willful ignorance of Afghan history, culture, and political dynamics—a direct and tragic echo of the central failure in Vietnam.3 The U.S. and its coalition partners attempted to impose a centralized, Western-style democratic government on a country that had never had one, empowering a government in Kabul that was seen by many Afghans as corrupt and illegitimate.44 Unchecked corruption, much of it fueled by vast injections of American aid, fatally undermined the Afghan government’s credibility and became a key driver of the resurgent Taliban insurgency.44

The 20-year effort was further hobbled by systemic institutional flaws. Politically driven timelines for troop surges and withdrawals, often dictated by U.S. domestic election cycles, consistently undermined military efforts on the ground.44 The constant turnover of U.S. military and civilian personnel—a phenomenon known as the “annual lobotomy”—drained the mission of institutional knowledge and continuity, ensuring that the same mistakes were made year after year.44 Throughout the conflict, U.S. leaders consistently and publicly overestimated the capabilities and cohesion of the Afghan National Security Forces, using flawed metrics that painted a misleading picture of progress.42 When the U.S. finally withdrew its forces in August 2021, that same Afghan army and government collapsed with a speed that shocked policymakers but was predictable to many who had observed the deep-seated flaws of the entire enterprise.

The war in Afghanistan stands as the ultimate testament to the failure of American institutional memory. The core strategic lessons of Vietnam—the primacy of politics over military force, the absolute necessity of a legitimate and viable local partner, and the requirement for deep cultural and historical understanding—were almost entirely disregarded. The U.S. military proved itself to be a learning organization at the tactical level, developing and implementing sophisticated counter-insurgency doctrine. Yet, this tactical proficiency could not salvage a fundamentally broken grand strategy. The tragedy of Afghanistan is that its outcome was not a surprise; it was the predictable result of ignoring the most painful lessons of the nation’s past conflicts.

3.2 Iraq (2003-2011): A War of Choice and Consequence

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, represents the most controversial and consequential U.S. military action of the post-9/11 era. Launched on the basis of flawed and exaggerated intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to Al-Qaeda, the war was a strategic choice rather than a necessity.47 The initial invasion was a stunning display of the U.S. military’s conventional prowess, toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in just three weeks. However, this tactical success was immediately followed by a catastrophic failure of strategic planning for the post-conflict phase.

The Bush administration and military planners went to war with the fatally optimistic assumption that Iraq’s sophisticated state institutions would remain intact after the regime was “decapitated,” ready to be used by a new, friendly government.49 This assumption was shattered by the widespread looting and collapse of civil order that followed the fall of Baghdad. This initial failure was compounded by two disastrous policy decisions made by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The first was the order to disband the entire Iraqi military, which put hundreds of thousands of armed, trained, and suddenly unemployed men on the street with no stake in the new Iraq.49 The second was the sweeping de-Ba’athification policy, which purged experienced technocrats from the government ministries, crippling the state’s ability to function. Together, these decisions created a security vacuum, alienated the Sunni minority, and directly fueled a virulent insurgency.49

For several years, the U.S. pursued a flawed counter-insurgency strategy predicated on the idea that political progress and the transfer of sovereignty would drive security gains. The reality on the ground proved the opposite to be true: in a situation of dramatic physical insecurity, sectarian and tribal identities trumped national ones, and violence spiraled into a vicious civil war by 2006.49 The turning point came in 2007 with the implementation of the “Surge.” This represented a major strategic adaptation, involving the deployment of five additional U.S. combat brigades and, more importantly, a fundamental shift in doctrine to a population-centric counter-insurgency strategy focused on providing security for the Iraqi people.49 The Surge, combined with the “Anbar Awakening” of Sunni tribes against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, dramatically reduced violence and pulled the country back from the brink of collapse.49

The Surge demonstrated that the U.S. military is a formidable learning institution, capable of dramatic and successful adaptation even in the midst of a failing war. However, it also highlighted the limits of military power. The tactical success of the Surge created a window of opportunity for political reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian factions, but that window was not seized by Iraq’s political leaders. The U.S. withdrawal in 2011, dictated by a previously negotiated agreement, left behind a fragile political settlement that soon frayed. The sectarian policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki alienated Sunnis, creating the conditions for the spectacular rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which seized a third of the country in 2014. The war, launched to eliminate a non-existent threat, ultimately resulted in the empowerment of Iran, America’s primary regional adversary, which became the dominant external actor in Baghdad.50 The ultimate lesson of Iraq is that winning the war is only the first, and often the easiest, step. Regime change is not a discrete event but the beginning of a long, complex, and resource-intensive process of nation-building. The failure to plan for this “Phase IV” was a failure of policy and imagination at the highest levels of government, one for which no amount of subsequent military adaptation could fully compensate.

3.3 The Evolving Fight: Libya (2011) and Counter-ISIS Operations (2014-Present)

The military operations of the 2010s in Libya and against the Islamic State (ISIS) reflect a direct and evolving response to the painful experiences of the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The intervention in Libya represented a catastrophic application of the worst lessons of the previous two decades, while the subsequent campaign against ISIS demonstrated a conscious attempt to develop a more sustainable and limited model of intervention.

The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, Operation Odyssey Dawn, was framed under the international norm of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), with the stated goal of preventing a threatened massacre of civilians in Benghazi by the forces of Muammar al-Qaddafi.51 The Obama administration, wary of another large-scale ground commitment, adopted a “lead from behind” posture, providing unique U.S. assets like intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and aerial refueling to enable European allies and rebel forces on the ground.52 The air campaign was successful in its military objectives: it prevented an attack on Benghazi and ultimately led to the collapse of the Qaddafi regime with no NATO casualties.53

However, the intervention was a strategic disaster, described by some analysts as a “model of failure”.51 The mission rapidly morphed from civilian protection to outright regime change, a goal that went beyond the UN mandate.54 Most critically, the U.S. and its allies willfully ignored the central lesson of Iraq: the absolute necessity of planning for post-conflict stabilization. Having enabled the overthrow of the regime, the international community largely disengaged, leaving Libya to descend into state collapse, years of brutal civil war between rival militias, and a humanitarian crisis.55 The resulting power vacuum turned Libya into a safe haven for terrorist groups and a major source of weapons proliferation across North Africa and the Sahel, destabilizing neighboring countries like Mali.54 Libya represents the disastrous convergence of the most flawed lessons of the 1990s and 2000s: the Kosovo model of “zero-casualty” airpower-led regime change, combined with the complete abdication of post-conflict responsibility that characterized the initial failure in Iraq.

In stark contrast, the campaign against ISIS, launched in 2014 as Operation Inherent Resolve, can be seen as a direct, corrective response to the failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Faced with the collapse of the Iraqi army and the seizure of major cities by ISIS, the U.S. adopted a “by, with, and through” strategy.56 This model explicitly sought to avoid a large-scale American ground war. Instead, the U.S. assembled a broad international coalition to provide critical support—primarily airpower, intelligence, special operations forces, and training—to local partner forces who would do the bulk of the fighting and dying on the ground.57 In Iraq, the primary partner was the rebuilt Iraqi Security Forces; in Syria, it was the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

This approach proved highly effective in achieving its limited military objective: the destruction of the physical ISIS “caliphate.” Coalition airpower was decisive in halting ISIS advances, attriting its forces and finances, and enabling partner forces to retake territory, including major urban battles in Mosul and Raqqa.57 This was accomplished at a fraction of the cost in American lives and treasure compared to the previous wars.56 The counter-ISIS campaign represents a more pragmatic and sustainable model for counter-terrorism, one that acknowledges the limits of American power and seeks to avoid the open-ended nation-building quagmires of the past. However, this model is not without significant risks. Its success is contingent on the competence, reliability, and political agendas of local partners, which can often be at odds with U.S. interests. It is a model of “limited liability” that successfully addresses the military threat of a terrorist group but does not, and cannot, solve the underlying political and sectarian grievances that allowed the group to rise in the first place.


Conclusion: Enduring Lessons and Future Challenges

A half-century of continuous conflict has etched a series of powerful, often painful, lessons into the institutional consciousness of the United States military and the nation’s policymakers. While the context of each conflict is unique, the analysis of this period reveals several overarching, enduring truths about the nature of war and the application of American power. The consistent failure to adhere to these fundamental lessons has been the most common precursor to strategic failure.

First and foremost is the primacy of politics. Time and again, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, the U.S. has demonstrated that tactical and operational military success is ultimately meaningless if it is not tethered to a coherent, viable, and achievable political strategy. Military force can create conditions for political success, but it cannot be a substitute for it. Wars are won not merely when the enemy’s army is defeated, but when a sustainable and more favorable political order is established.

Second is the imperative to know thy enemy, thyself, and the terrain. Repeated failures have stemmed from a profound lack of deep cultural, historical, and political understanding of the societies in which the U.S. has intervened.3 This ignorance, often coupled with an arrogant assumption that American models of governance can be universally applied, has led to strategic miscalculations and counterproductive outcomes. Understanding the human and political terrain is as critical as understanding the physical terrain.

Third is the lesson of the indispensable local partner. No amount of external military power can create a stable and lasting outcome without a legitimate, competent, and credible local partner who commands the support and trust of their own population.3 Propping up illegitimate or corrupt regimes, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, is a recipe for strategic failure, as the external force becomes inextricably linked to a government that cannot survive on its own.

Fourth, the conflicts of the 1990s and 2000s have exposed the illusion of “immaculate intervention.” The quest for a low-cost, risk-free way to wage war through standoff technologies, airpower alone, or proxy forces is a dangerous fallacy. While these tools can reduce American casualties and political risk in the short term, they cannot eliminate strategic risk. As seen in Kosovo and Libya, they can create unintended consequences, fail to solve underlying political problems, and lead to disastrous second- and third-order effects.41

Finally, there is a crucial distinction between adaptation and strategy. The U.S. military has proven to be a remarkable learning institution, capable of profound adaptation at the operational and tactical levels. The post-Vietnam reforms, the development of joint warfare, and the evolution of counter-insurgency doctrine during the Surge in Iraq are powerful testaments to this capacity. However, this operational adaptability cannot compensate for a flawed or absent grand strategy. Tactical brilliance in the service of a strategically bankrupt policy leads only to a more efficient and costly failure.

As the United States pivots its strategic focus toward an era of great power competition with near-peer adversaries like China and Russia, these lessons remain more relevant than ever. The challenges of understanding an adversary’s political will, managing escalation in a complex global environment, defining realistic and achievable political objectives, and maintaining domestic and international support will be paramount. The past 50 years have shown that the most decisive battlefield is often not one of territory, but of strategy, will, and understanding. Forgetting these hard-won lessons is a luxury the nation cannot afford.


Appendix: Summary Table of Conflicts and Key Lessons

Conflict / OperationDatesKey ObjectivesLessons Learned: What to DoLessons Learned: What Not to Do
Vietnam War1964-1975Contain Communism; Preserve a non-Communist South Vietnam.Maintain public and political support; ensure military objectives are tied to a viable political strategy; foster a professional, disciplined force.2Underestimate the enemy’s political and military will; believe technology can substitute for strategy; ignore local culture/politics; prop up an illegitimate local partner.3
Op. Eagle Claw (Iran)1980Rescue U.S. hostages.Conduct rigorous, integrated, full-mission-profile rehearsals; ensure clear and unified command and control for joint operations.1Allow excessive OPSEC to cripple planning and information flow; use ad-hoc command structures; fail to ensure equipment interoperability and suitability.1
Op. Urgent Fury (Grenada)1983Rescue U.S. citizens; restore democratic government.Apply overwhelming force to achieve limited objectives quickly; recognize the need for joint interoperability as a prerequisite for success.6Operate without adequate intelligence or maps; allow interservice rivalries to impede operations; deploy with incompatible communication systems.6
Lebanon Intervention1982-1984Peacekeeping; stabilize the country.Ensure force has a clear, achievable mandate and robust rules of engagement; maintain neutrality to be an effective peacekeeper.10Deploy a “peacekeeping” force where there is no peace to keep; become a party to a multi-sided civil war; withdraw without a stabilization plan, creating a vacuum.10
Op. El Dorado Canyon (Libya)1986Punish Libya for terrorism; deter future attacks.Demonstrate long-range strike capability and political resolve; coordinate joint air and naval assets effectively.12Assume punitive strikes will solve underlying political issues; act unilaterally without allied support if it can be avoided; underestimate potential for asymmetric retaliation.12
Op. Just Cause (Panama)1989Safeguard U.S. lives; capture Noriega; restore democracy.Use overwhelming, well-rehearsed joint force for clear, limited objectives; leverage the credible threat of force as a tool of coercive diplomacy.18Mistake success in a uniquely permissive environment (welcoming population, known terrain) for a universally applicable strategic template for regime change.21
Op. Desert Storm (Gulf War I)1990-1991Liberate Kuwait; defend Saudi Arabia.Build a broad international coalition; secure public support; use overwhelming force for clear, limited goals; have a clear military exit strategy.4Fail to plan for the long-term political aftermath of the conflict; allow a tactical victory to create strategic hubris about the nature of future wars (e.g., over-reliance on technology).4
Somalia Intervention1992-1993Humanitarian relief; restore order.Clearly define the mission and resist “mission creep” from humanitarianism to nation-building; ensure forces are properly equipped for the evolving threat.27Underestimate local adversaries’ capabilities and will to fight; allow tactical events and media coverage to dictate strategic withdrawal; create a policy of risk-aversion for future crises.29
Op. Uphold Democracy (Haiti)1994Restore democratically elected government.Use the credible threat of force as a tool of coercive diplomacy; demonstrate operational flexibility to shift from combat to peacekeeping.33Confuse short-term operational success (restoring a leader) with long-term strategic success (building a stable democracy); fail to commit to the long-term resources nation-building requires.37
Balkan Wars (Bosnia/Kosovo)1995-1999Stop ethnic cleansing; stabilize the region.Intervene decisively and early to prevent greater cost later; use airpower in concert with local ground forces; maintain alliance cohesion.38Engage in half-measures and incremental escalation; believe airpower alone can stop atrocities on the ground without risk; ignore the long-term responsibility of post-conflict stabilization (“Pottery Barn Rule”).32
Op. Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)2001-2021Destroy Al-Qaeda; remove Taliban; build a stable, democratic Afghanistan.Adapt tactically to counter-insurgency warfare; leverage special forces and local partners for initial regime change.42Allow “strategic drift” without clear, consistent objectives; ignore lessons of Vietnam (culture, local partner legitimacy); impose politically-driven timelines; fail to address corruption and sanctuaries.43
Op. Iraqi Freedom (Iraq)2003-2011Remove Saddam Hussein (WMD threat); establish a democratic Iraq.Adapt to insurgency (e.g., the Surge); recognize that security is the essential precondition for political progress.49Go to war on flawed intelligence; fail to plan for post-conflict stabilization (“Phase IV”); dismantle state institutions without a viable replacement; underestimate the complexity of nation-building.49
Op. Odyssey Dawn (Libya)2011Protect civilians (R2P); enforce no-fly zone.Build international consensus for limited action; utilize a “lead from behind” model to enable allies and partners.52Allow a humanitarian mission to morph into regime change without a plan for the aftermath; ignore the lessons of Iraq, leading to state collapse and regional chaos.51
Op. Inherent Resolve (Counter-ISIS)2014-PresentDegrade and defeat ISIS; destroy the “caliphate.”Employ a sustainable “by, with, and through” model; leverage local partners with coalition air/intel/SOF support to limit U.S. footprint.56Become overly dependent on the political reliability and competing agendas of local proxy forces; assume the territorial defeat of a group equals its ideological destruction.56

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Works cited

  1. Operation Eagle Claw-Lessons Learned – DTIC, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA402471.pdf
  2. A Half Century Later: Understanding the Impact of the Vietnam War | Vassar College, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.vassar.edu/news/a-half-century-later-understanding-the-impact-of-the-vietnam-war
  3. The Vietnam War: Lessons Unlearned | Peace Policy, accessed August 22, 2025, https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2015/05/18/the-vietnam-war-lessons-unlearned/
  4. Desert War Taught Lessons In How Superpower Uses Force | AUSA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/articles/desert-war-taught-lessons-how-superpower-uses-force
  5. What Operation Eagle Claw Taught Us About Leadership and Resolve, accessed August 22, 2025, https://embleholics.com/operation-eagle-claw/
  6. Fortunate Victory | Naval History Magazine – October 2023, Volume …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2023/october/fortunate-victory-0
  7. Grenada: Operation Urgent Fury – Naval History and Heritage Command – Navy.mil, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/grenada-operation-urgent-fury.html
  8. Operation Eagle Claw-Lessons Learned – DTIC, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA402471
  9. Lebanon—They Came in Peace – Naval History and Heritage Command, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/middle-east/lebanon.html
  10. Lessons from American Diplomacy Toward Lebanon | Wilson Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/lessons-american-diplomacy-toward-lebanon
  11. Stew in Their Own Juice: Reagan, Syria and Lebanon, 1981–1984* | Diplomatic History, accessed August 22, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/dh/article/44/4/664/5865464
  12. US Operation Eldorado Canyon – Walter Dorn, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.walterdorn.net/212
  13. Air Force and Navy aircraft crossed Qaddafi’s “Line of Death” to strike the terrorist state of Libya. – El Dorado Canyon – Department of Defense, accessed August 22, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2016/Mar/09/2001475953/-1/-1/0/0399CANYON.PDF
  14. 1986 United States bombing of Libya – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya
  15. Lessons from America’s First Conflict with Iran – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-from-americas-first-war-with-iran/
  16. United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
  17. Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War – DTIC, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA232451.pdf
  18. Operation Just Cause: the Invasion of Panama, December 1989 | Article – Army.mil, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/14302/operation_just_cause_the_invasion_of_panama_december_1989
  19. The United States 1989 military intervention in Panama: a just cause? – LSU Scholarly Repository, accessed August 22, 2025, https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3883&context=gradschool_theses
  20. NSIAD-91-174FS Panama: Issues Relating to the U.S. Invasion – GAO, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-174fs.pdf
  21. Operation Just Cause: Lessons for Operations Other Than War – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR569.pdf
  22. Extracts from Lessons Unlearned – Columbia International Affairs Online, accessed August 22, 2025, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ni/ni_00dot01.html
  23. Mission Command in Operation Just Cause | Small Wars Journal by …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2023/02/19/mission-command-operation-just-cause/
  24. Desert Storm—Early Gulf War Lessons | Proceedings – U.S. Naval Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1991/march/desert-storm-early-gulf-war-lessons
  25. The Pentagon has been learning the wrong lessons for three decades – Defense One, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/01/pentagon-has-been-learning-wrong-lessons-three-decades/393765/
  26. Full article: Pragmatism over principle: US intervention and burden shifting in Somalia, 1992–1993, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2018.1441712
  27. Readings | Ambush in Mogadishu | FRONTLINE – PBS, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/readings/lessons.html
  28. Somalia: Drawing the Right Lesson From “Black Hawk Down” – International Peace Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ipinst.org/2011/08/somalia-drawing-the-right-lesson-from-black-hawk-down
  29. From Nation-Building to Black Hawk Down: U.S. Peacekeeping in Somalia – ADST.org, accessed August 22, 2025, https://adst.org/2014/09/from-nation-building-to-black-hawk-down-u-s-peacekeeping-in-somalia/
  30. Battle of Mogadishu – Army University Press – Army.mil, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2022/February/Battle-of-Mogadishu/
  31. Retiree reflects on Mogadishu: Former Ranger shares lessons learned during ‘Black Hawk Down’ | Article | The United States Army, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/120372/retiree_reflects_on_mogadishu_former_ranger_shares_lessons_learned_during_black_hawk_down
  32. Bosnia Remembered – Part III: The Lessons of Bosnia – Foreign Policy Research Institute, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.fpri.org/article/2012/12/bosnia-remembered-part-iii-the-lessons-of-bosnia/
  33. Intervention in Haiti, 1994–1995 – Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations – Office of the Historian, accessed August 22, 2025, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/haiti
  34. Operation Uphold Democracy – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy
  35. Operation Uphold Democracy: Military Support for Democracy in Haiti – DTIC, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA394191.pdf
  36. Eyewitness to Chaos – UNL Digital Commons, accessed August 22, 2025, https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/unpresssamples/article/1342/viewcontent/9781612348681.pdf
  37. How Operation Uphold Democracy Still Affects Life … – Time Magazine, accessed August 22, 2025, https://time.com/5682135/haiti-military-anniversary/
  38. Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/
  39. The Lessons of Bosnia, Ten Years On | International Crisis Group, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/balkans/bosnia-and-herzegovina/lessons-bosnia-ten-years
  40. Peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2004) – NATO, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52122.htm
  41. [1999-09-16] Roth Floor Statement on Lessons Learned in Kosovo …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/roth-floor-statement-on-lessons-learned-in-kosovo-conflict
  42. Learning from Failed Peace Efforts in Afghanistan, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/10/learning-failed-peace-efforts-afghanistan
  43. Veterans’ voices shape a report on the Afghanistan War’s lessons and impact, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/veterans-afghanistan-war-commission-report-9e2e759132eef92c382c40527f5acc75
  44. – U.S. LESSONS LEARNED IN AFGHANISTAN – GovInfo, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg38915/html/CHRG-116hhrg38915.htm
  45. Timeline: The U.S. War in Afghanistan – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
  46. SIGAR 25-05 Staffing the Mission: Lessons from the U.S. …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/lessons-learned/SIGAR-25-05-LL.pdf
  47. Lessons From History Series: The U.S. Invasion of Iraq—Twenty Years Later, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/event/lessons-history-series-us-invasion-iraq-twenty-years-later
  48. The Iraq War | George W. Bush Library, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/the-iraq-war
  49. Lessons Learned: The Iraq Invasion | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/lessons-learned-iraq-invasion
  50. How Iran Won Our Iraq War | Tufts Now, accessed August 22, 2025, https://now.tufts.edu/2019/03/26/how-iran-won-our-iraq-war
  51. A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign – Belfer Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/model-humanitarian-intervention-reassessing-natos-libya-campaign
  52. Lessons of the Libya Intervention – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-of-the-libya-intervention/
  53. The Lessons of Libya – Army University Press, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120229_art011.pdf
  54. Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene | The Belfer Center for …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/lessons-libya-how-not-intervene
  55. Lessons from Libya: 5 Developments that Should be Remembered when Approaching the Question of Coups in Africa | Wilson Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/lessons-libya-5-developments-should-be-remembered-when-approaching-question-coups-africa
  56. A New Approach to Defeating an Old Enemy: Army Special Operations Forces in Operation INHERENT RESOLVE | Article – Army.mil, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/280128/a_new_approach_to_defeating_an_old_enemy_army_special_operations_forces_in_operation_inherent_resolve
  57. The Role of U.S. Airpower in Defeating ISIS | RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA388-1.html
  58. Operation Inherent Resolve – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve
  59. Five Operational Lessons from the Battle for Mosul – Army University Press, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/Jan-Feb-2019/Arnold-Mosul/
  60. U.S. Diplomacy before the Kosovo War – Brookings Institution, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-diplomacy-before-the-kosovo-war/
  61. Inherent Resolve Mission in Iraq and Syria Transitioning – Department of Defense, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3920032/inherent-resolve-mission-in-iraq-and-syria-transitioning/

The Unattainable Utopia: A Brutally Honest Report on Communism’s Impossible Promise

An old ghost haunts the 21st century. It is the ghost of an idea so powerful it claimed the lives of nearly 100 million people, yet so appealing it refuses to die. In an age defined by never-before-seen technological progress and interconnectedness, a startling number of people, particularly the young, are turning back to the political ideology that produced the greatest man-made disasters in human history: communism.

The evidence for this resurgence is as widespread as it is puzzling. Polling in Western nations repeatedly shows a generation that has not only forgotten the lessons of the Cold War but is actively using the language of its defeated enemy. In the United States, a 2019 YouGov poll found that more than a third of millennials approve of communism.1 Another survey by the Fraser Institute discovered that nearly a third of young people in Britain believe “communism is the ideal economic system”.2 This trend toward radical ideas is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a common feeling among a generation that has grown up in a world of perceived crisis.2

The reasons for this are understandable, if not forgivable. This generation grew up in the long shadow of the 2008 financial crisis, a moment that shattered faith in the stability of free-market capitalism. They face a future of unstable jobs, wages that don’t increase, and the threatening possibility of climate change.1 They see a system that appears rigged, generating vast inequality and corporate greed, and they are told—by academics, by activists, and by social media influencers—that the problem is capitalism itself.1 Into this environment of disappointment, communism offers a simple, powerful narrative. It speaks of justice, equality, and a world free from oppression and exploitation. As one communist youth organization puts it, “A new generation of communists is being forged by capitalism’s crises and catastrophes”.2 They are told that the system is broken and that only a revolutionary alternative can fix it.2

The Historical Amnesia

This attraction is enabled by a deep and dangerous lack of historical memory. The public education system and mainstream culture have largely failed to convey the brutal reality of 20th-century communist regimes.1 The history of communism, when taught at all, is often cleaned up or presented as a series of separate tragedies, with their causes hidden. The direct link between the ideology on the page and the corpses in the field is cut. A report from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation highlights a shocking lack of basic knowledge among young Americans about the horrible acts committed in the name of this ideology.1

In place of historical truth, a romanticized myth has taken hold. Revolutionary figures like Che Guevara are reduced to fashionable icons on t-shirts, their roles as planners of firing squads and concentration camps conveniently forgotten.1 After Castro’s victory, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabaña prison, where he personally oversaw and ordered the execution of hundreds of individuals deemed “enemies of the revolution”.4 Estimates of those killed under his direct authority range from over 150 to 500 people.5 His victims were not just soldiers from the previous regime, but political prisoners, dissidents, and even children, with some accounts detailing the execution of boys as young as 14.7 Guevara openly disdained due process, famously stating, “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail”.10 This lack of true understanding allows the ideology’s utopian promises to be heard without the deafening echo of the screams from the Gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia, or the starved villages of Ukraine.

Thesis Statement

This report is an effort to reclaim historical truth. It is a brutally honest accounting of an idea and its consequences. Its purpose is to arm a new generation with the one thing that can protect them from this dangerous attraction: the truth. The central, firm argument of this report is that the promises of communism are not merely difficult to achieve; they are completely impossible. They are built on a deeply mistaken understanding of human nature and a disastrous lack of knowledge of economic reality.

Furthermore, this report will demonstrate, with undeniable proof, that the horrific outcomes witnessed in every communist experiment—totalitarianism, political repression, forced labor, famine, and mass death—are not accidental mistakes, “bad implementations,” or the fault of uniquely evil leaders like Stalin or Mao. They are the direct, predictable, and unavoidable consequences of attempting to force an ideology that cannot work onto the world. The road to a classless, stateless utopia has never once led to its destination. It has only ever been paved with corpses, and the final destination has always been a totalitarian hell. This is the warning from history that must be heard.

I. The Siren Song: The Utopian Promise of Pure Communism

To understand the danger of communism, one must first understand its appeal. It is not an ideology of pure malice; it is a tempting promise of a perfect world that has tricked generations of idealists into disaster. Its power lies in its comprehensive criticism of the world as it is and its amazing vision of the world as it could be.

The Vision of a Perfect World

At the heart of Marxist theory lies a vision of a final, perfect end: the achievement of “true communism.” This is the promised land at the end of history. In this ultimate stage of social organization, the state itself would “wither away”.11 There would be no government, no police, no army, because the root of all social conflict—class division—would have been eliminated. Society would become both classless and stateless.11

In this utopia, the concept of private property, at least concerning the “means of production” (factories, land, mines), would be abolished entirely.11 All productive assets would be owned collectively by the people. There would be no currency, no wages, and no profit motive.11 Wealth and goods would be produced in abundance and distributed according to the famous principle articulated by Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.11 This is the core of the promise: a world without poverty, without inequality, without force, where humanity is finally free to reach its full potential in a peaceful community. It is a vision of heaven on earth, a non-religious belief system for a world that had lost its faith.

The Critique of Capitalism

This utopian destination is made all the more appealing by Marxism’s powerful and strong criticism of the starting point: capitalism. Marx framed all of human history as a non-stop story of conflict between social classes.12 In each era, a dominant “oppressor” class owns the means of production and exploits a subordinate “oppressed” class. Under capitalism, this struggle is between the bourgeoisie (the owners of capital) and the proletariat (the industrial working class).12

According to the theory, capitalism is a system that is naturally unfair and takes advantage of people. The value of any product, Marx argued, comes from the labor invested in it. However, the capitalist pays the worker only a fraction of this value as a wage. The rest, the “surplus value,” is extracted by the capitalist as profit.12 This process is not seen as a voluntary exchange but as a form of theft that guarantees endless inequality and social injustice.

This framework is essential for understanding the modern appeal of communism. When activists speak of “social justice,” they are often, consciously or not, echoing this Marxist critique. The goal is not merely equal rights or equal opportunity within the existing system, but equity—the achievement of equal outcomes.12 This can only be accomplished, the theory holds, by taking apart the entire system of capitalism that produces unequal outcomes in the first place.

The Path of Revolution

Crucially, Marx and his followers did not believe this transformation could happen peacefully or slowly over time. The state, in Marxist theory, is not a neutral judge but simply “the repressive institution” of the ruling class.11 It exists to protect the property and interests of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, it cannot be reformed through democratic means; it must be smashed.

Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.12 As the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, a devout Marxist, famously declared, “Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun”.12 The revolution is envisioned as a violent, necessary act in which the proletariat seizes control, takes the property of the bourgeoisie, and establishes its own rule. This revolutionary path is not an unfortunate but necessary step; it is a key part of the ideology’s thinking. It is the fire in which the old world is burned away to make room for the new. It is this combination—a strong criticism of the present, a glorious vision of the future, and a clear, violent path to get there—that has given communism its enduring and deadly power.

II. The Blueprint’s Fatal Flaws: Human Nature and Economic Reality

The communist blueprint for utopia is elegant in its simplicity and amazing in its ambition. Yet, it is built upon a foundation of sand. It fails not because its ideals are dishonorable, but because it goes against two basic and unchangeable truths of reality: the nature of the human person and the nature of economic knowledge. These are not minor technical problems to be ironed out; they are disastrous flaws in the system itself that guarantee not only the ideology’s failure but its transformation into a horrible dictatorship.

A. The Human Nature Obstacle: The Individual Lost in the Group

Marx’s Malleable Man

The first fatal flaw lies in the ideology’s understanding of humanity itself. To create the communist “new man”—an unselfish, cooperative person content to work for the collective good without personal motivation or reward—the theory had to argue that human nature as we know it is not real. Karl Marx proposed that what we perceive as human nature is not a permanent and universal condition. Instead, he argued that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations”.13

In this view, traits like selfishness, ambition, and the desire for private property are not natural. They are products of culture, mental burdens instilled by the capitalist system, which rewards greed and accumulation.13 The theory holds that human nature is endlessly changeable, “modified in each historical epoch”.13 Therefore, if you change the economic system from one based on private ownership and competition to one based on collective ownership and cooperation, you will literally change human nature itself. Greed will be replaced by altruism, competition by collaboration.14 This belief is the fundamental psychological premise of communism: that a new society can create a new kind of person.

The Philosophical and Psychological Rebuttal

This premise is not only something philosophers can argue about; it is psychologically ridiculous. While society and culture are powerful forces in shaping individual behavior, they do not operate on a blank slate. Modern psychology, particularly the strong and widely accepted self-determination theory (SDT), has identified natural and universal psychological needs that are essential for people to thrive and be well across all cultures.16 These are not capitalist constructs; they are fundamental components of our evolved nature.

According to SDT, all humans require the satisfaction of three basic needs to be motivated, productive, and mentally healthy:

  1. Autonomy: The need to feel that one is the author of one’s own life, to have choice and will over one’s actions.16
  2. Competence: The need to feel effective and capable in one’s activities, to master challenges and express one’s abilities.16
  3. Relatedness: The need to feel connected to and cared for by others.16

Communism, in its practical application, launches a direct and organized attack on these core needs. It is a system that is, by its very design, mentally harmful. The pursuit of self-interest, the desire to “better their condition,” is a powerful and positive human motivation.16 While it can be channeled destructively, in a free-market environment it becomes the engine of innovation and prosperity through voluntary exchange. Communism does not seek to channel this drive; it seeks to destroy it, and in doing so, it destroys the human spirit.

The Tyranny of Coerced Labor

The entire economic structure of communism is built on the principle of “controlled motivation,” the use of force and duty to make people act, rather than “autonomous motivation,” which flows from free will.16 The state, in its supposed wisdom, decides what work must be done, who must do it, and what, if anything, they will receive for it. Entrepreneurial activity, the ultimate expression of economic autonomy, is forbidden.16

This creates a condition of deep mental damage. As one analysis bluntly states, under communism, “Personal autonomy is non-existent. Human beings are simply cogs in a machine tasked with producing utopia; they have no value of their own”.16 The system strips individuals of the very psychological nutrients necessary for a healthy life. It denies them autonomy by eliminating choice. It denies them competence by removing the link between effort and reward, making their work feel meaningless. It even damages relatedness by forcing individuals into a state of dependence on an impersonal, bureaucratic machine.

The result is not the creation of a “new man” but the breaking down of the person who already exists. When a system is at war with fundamental human drives for autonomy, ambition, and self-interest, it cannot win by persuasion. It must win by force. The ideology’s flawed psychology creates the first and most crucial justification for the totalitarian state: the need to crush the natural, unbending resistance of the human spirit.

B. The Economic Calculation Catastrophe: Planning in the Dark

If the psychological flaw of communism guarantees it will become oppressive, its economic flaw guarantees it will be poor. The second fatal error, identified with shocking clarity by economists of the Austrian School, is known as the “economic calculation problem”.17 It is an argument of such profound power that it demonstrates not just that centrally planned economies are inefficient, but that they are, in a very real sense, impossible to operate logically.

The Problem Defined

The argument, first articulated by Ludwig von Mises in 1920, is as follows: in a complex economy, the central challenge is to decide how to use limited resources for the things people want most. How do we decide whether to use steel to build a bridge, a tractor, or a hospital? In a market economy, this problem is solved by the price system.17

Prices are not arbitrary numbers set by capitalists. They are changing signals that carry a huge amount of information.17 The price of steel reflects its relative scarcity, the intensity of consumer demand for all the products made from it, and the cost of all the labor and other resources required to produce it. This allows entrepreneurs to perform economic calculation—to compare the costs of production with the potential revenues and determine whether a project is a worthwhile use of society’s resources.18

Now, consider the socialist society. The state has abolished private ownership of the means of production.11 Factories, land, and machinery are all owned by the government. Because these “capital goods” (goods used to make other goods) are never bought or sold, there is no market for them. And without a market, there can be no genuine prices.17 The central planner is flying blind.

The Blindness of the Central Planner

Mises argued that even if the central planning board were staffed by angels and equipped with supercomputers, it could not solve this problem.18 Without prices for the factors of production, there is no way to logically calculate the most efficient way to produce anything. The planners might know how much steel they have, but they have no objective way to compare its value in one use versus another. They are forced to rely on “calculation in kind”—trying to make decisions based on raw physical quantities (tons, meters, etc.)—which is an impossible task in an economy with millions of different goods and resources.17 As Mises concluded, “rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth”.17

Friedrich Hayek later expanded on this, framing it as the “knowledge problem”.18 Hayek pointed out that the economic data needed to run an economy is not, and cannot be, held in any single mind or by any single committee. It is spread out among millions of individuals, each possessing unique “knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place”.20 A farmer knows his land; a factory manager knows his machines; a consumer knows their own preferences. The price system is the only mechanism ever discovered that can automatically coordinate all of this decentralized knowledge and communicate it throughout the economy, allowing millions of people to align their individual plans with one another without any central direction.17

Guaranteed Inefficiency and Shortage

Central planning, by its very nature, ignores this vast reserve of local knowledge. It attempts to substitute the wisdom of the crowd with the decrees of a few bureaucrats. The inevitable result is a disastrous misuse of resources. The Soviet Union became famous for its stories of tractors sitting idle for want of a single spare part, of mountains of shoes produced with no laces, and of food rotting in fields for lack of transport to the cities.18 These were not accidents; they were the direct and predictable consequences of an economic system deprived of the ability to calculate.

This fundamental economic flaw explains the constant poverty and lack of goods that have troubled every communist state in history. The system is incapable of efficiently coordinating production to meet the needs of the population. This failure creates the second great justification for the totalitarian state. When the economy inevitably falls into chaos, the state must use its power to impose order, to ration scarce goods, and to punish those who are blamed for the system’s built-in failures. The economic blueprint itself contains the seeds of famine and repression.

The ideology’s war on human psychology and economic logic creates a deadly cycle. The attempt to erase self-interest makes a police state necessary to enforce compliance. The abolition of private property and prices makes a command economy necessary that cannot function, leading to shortages and chaos. This chaos, in turn, requires an even more powerful and brutal state to control the problems it created. The failure is built in from the very beginning.

III. The Road to Tyranny: The State That Never Withers

Marxist theory contains a great and tempting lie: that the state, after seizing power in the name of the people, will simply “wither away”.11 History has proven this to be the most dishonest of its promises. The communist state has never withered. Instead, in every instance, it has grown into a giant, monstrous government, an all-powerful totalitarian machine dedicated to the permanent control of its people. This is not a tragic accident or a betrayal of the original vision. It is the ideology’s only possible political outcome. When a system declares war on human nature and economic reality, it requires unlimited power to keep itself going.

A. The “Transitional” State That Becomes Permanent

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The theoretical bridge from capitalist revolution to communist utopia is a concept Marx called the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.21 This is meant to be a temporary stage. After the revolution, the working class, organized as the ruling power, would use the full force of the state to destroy the remaining opposition from the property-owning class, seize all private property, and centralize all instruments of production under state control.11 Once this task was complete and a classless society was achieved, the state—being merely an instrument of class oppression—would no longer have a function. It would become outdated and fade into history.11

The Inevitable Escalation

This is the point where the theory collides with reality and shatters. As established in the previous chapter, the core policies of communism—the abolition of private property and the imposition of central planning—are fundamentally unworkable. They generate natural, constant resistance from the population, whose psychological needs are being violated, and they create widespread economic chaos.

In such an environment, the state cannot possibly wither. It must do the opposite. It must become ever more powerful, more interfering, and more brutal to control the problems of its own making. To suppress the farmers who resist collectivization, the workers who demand autonomy, and the intellectuals who dare to criticize, the state needs a secret police. To manage the constant shortages, it needs a vast bureaucracy of rationers and enforcers. To eliminate “class enemies” blamed for the system’s failures, it needs concentration camps. The “temporary” dictatorship of the proletariat does not solve the problem of class conflict; it replaces it with a new, more brutal conflict: the all-powerful state versus the entire population. The temporary method of transition becomes the permanent result.

B. Forging the Iron Fist: The Bolshevik Blueprint for Terror

The classic example for this inevitable process is the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia. The methods used by Vladimir Lenin and his party from 1917 onwards were not a distortion of Marxism but its most direct practical use. They created the blueprint for totalitarianism that would be copied by every subsequent communist regime.

A Coup, Not a Revolution

First, it is crucial to get rid of the myth that the Bolsheviks were swept to power by a popular mass uprising. As the famous historian Richard Pipes argued in his huge and important work, The Russian Revolution, the event of October 1917 was not a revolution at all but a brilliant and ruthless coup d’état—”the capture of governmental power by a small minority”.22 Having returned from exile, Lenin pushed his party without stopping toward an armed uprising, convinced that only a final blow could secure power.23 While other socialist parties debated forming a coalition government, the Bolsheviks, through their Military Revolutionary Committee, systematically occupied key points in Petrograd, culminating in the storming of the Winter Palace.23 They seized power not with the support of the people, but through conspiracy and force.

The Tools of Consolidation (1917-1921)

Having seized power, the Bolsheviks immediately set about constructing the machinery of a one-party state, demonstrating from the very beginning that their goal was absolute control, not freeing the people through democracy.24

  • The Death of Democracy: The Bolsheviks’ true attitude toward democracy was revealed in January 1918. In the first and only free election in revolutionary Russia, the vote for the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks were badly beaten, winning less than a quarter of the vote. Their response was simple: they shut down the assembly by force after a single day.25 With this act, the dream of a democratic Russia was put out, and the principle of one-party rule was established.
  • The Sword of the Revolution: Just weeks after the coup, in December 1917, Lenin founded the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, better known as the Cheka.27 Led by the extreme Felix Dzerzhinsky, the Cheka was the original secret police, the direct forerunner of the more infamous NKVD and KGB.27 Its mission was to defend the revolution through any means necessary, including press censorship, arrests for no clear reason, torture, and mass executions.27 With a staff that grew to over 250,000, the Cheka was responsible for executing at least 140,000 people in its first few years, establishing an unbroken 74-year tradition of secret police terror at the heart of the Soviet state.28
  • The Red Terror: The Bolsheviks did not hide their methods. They openly proclaimed the “Red Terror” as official state policy, a necessary tool to eliminate their opponents.25 This was not an unlucky mistake but the core of their strategy for consolidating power. As Pipes argued, terror was not an afterthought; it was “steeped in” the movement from its very inception.22
  • Monopoly on Truth: To ensure their grip was absolute, the Bolsheviks banned all other political parties and seized control of all printing presses, establishing a complete state monopoly on information.25

This rapid construction of a totalitarian system was not a betrayal of Marxist ideals. It was their logical result. As historian Robert Conquest argued in The Great Terror, Stalinism was not an unusual occurrence but a “natural consequence of the system established by Vladimir Lenin”.30 Lenin forged the iron fist that Stalin would later use to crush millions.

C. The Archipelago of Fear: Life Under the Mature Totalitarian State

The political system forged by Lenin and perfected by Stalin was unlike any tyranny that had come before. Its ultimate expression was the vast network of concentration camps that spread like cancer across the Soviet Union.

Solzhenitsyn’s Testimony

For decades, the true scale of this horror was hidden from the world. It was exposed with shocking force by the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago.31 A former Red Army officer and loyal communist, Solzhenitsyn was arrested in 1945 for a slightly critical remark about Stalin in a private letter and sentenced to eight years in the camps.32 His experience, combined with the secret stories of over 200 other survivors, formed the basis of his book, a work that David Remnick of The New Yorker said had a “greater effect on the political and moral consciousness of the late twentieth century” than any other.32

The Gulag System

Solzhenitsyn described the Gulag not as a simple prison system but as a “vast canvas of camps, prisons, transit centres and secret police” that formed a parallel nation within the USSR, an archipelago of islands of terror in a sea of fear.31 The Gulag served multiple purposes for the state. It was a dumping ground for political dissidents, religious believers, ethnic minorities, and anyone deemed a “counter-revolutionary” or “enemy of the people”.33 It was a tool of mass intimidation, ensuring the fearful obedience of the general population. And it was a vital economic force, providing a massive pool of slave labor for Stalin’s large-scale projects to build up industry, from logging in the Siberian taiga to digging canals with bare hands.34

The Gulag Archipelago is more than a history; it is a “ferocious testimony of a man of genius”.32 It tells the story of the journey into this underworld: the midnight arrest, the interrogations and torture in the cellars of the NKVD, the packed cattle cars of the transit centers, and the final destination in a camp where survival, as Solzhenitsyn wrote, “lay not in hope but in despair”.31 The state that was supposed to wither away had instead created the most complete system of human slavery the world had ever seen. This was the reality of applied communism.

IV. The Harvest of Sorrow: A Century of Man-Made Disaster

The theoretical flaws of communism are not merely academic. They have real-world consequences, written in the blood and suffering of countless millions. When a state declares war on human nature and economic law, the result is a scale of death and destruction unequaled in human history. The 20th century stands as a dark proof of this fact. Judging the revolution by its fruit, as the saying goes, reveals a harvest of sorrow, famine, and death.35

To comprehend the sheer scale of this tragedy, the following table gathers cautious estimates of the death tolls under major communist regimes, drawing from the work of internationally recognized scholars and important and influential books like The Black Book of Communism.

Table 1: The Human Cost of 20th Century Communism

Country/RegionLeader(s) / PeriodEstimated DeathsPrimary Sources
Soviet UnionVladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin (1917-1953)20,000,000 – 25,000,00030
People’s Republic of ChinaMao Zedong (1949-1976)45,000,000 – 65,000,00035
Cambodia (Khmer Rouge)Pol Pot (1975-1979)1,700,000 – 2,000,00035
North KoreaKim Dynasty (1948-Present)2,000,000+ (famine, purges, camps)35
VietnamHo Chi Minh / Party (1945-Present)1,000,000+ (camps, executions)35
Eastern EuropeVarious Regimes (1945-1989)1,000,000 (purges, repression)35
AfricaVarious Regimes (e.g., Ethiopia, Angola)1,700,000+35
AfghanistanSoviet-backed Regime (1978-1992)1,500,00035
Latin AmericaVarious Regimes (e.g., Cuba)150,000+35
Total (Approximate)~85,000,000 – 100,000,000+

This shocking number—approaching 100 million people—is not just a number. Each digit represents a human life put out by a political experiment. These deaths were not primarily deaths in war; they were the victims of executions, famines created on purpose, and the brutal conditions of forced labor camps. The following case studies illustrate how these disasters were not accidental but were the direct result of core communist policies.

A. Case Study: The Soviet War on the Peasantry

Nowhere is the deadly logic of communism clearer than in the Soviet Union’s war against its own rural population. The campaign to build a socialist society required the total control of the peasantry, who made up 80% of the population and controlled the nation’s food supply.

Forced Collectivization

Beginning in 1928, Joseph Stalin initiated a policy of forced collectivization. The goal was to get rid of private land ownership and combine 25 million individual peasant farms into large, state-controlled collective farms, or “kolkhozes”.37 This was presented as a move toward a more modern and efficient form of agriculture, but its true purpose was political: to break the independence of the farmers and give the state absolute control over the country’s grain.38 The process was anything but voluntary. It was a violent, forceful campaign. Peasants who resisted were subjected to the taking of their property, imprisonment, or execution.34 In protest, many slaughtered their own livestock rather than turn them over to the state. Between 1929 and 1933, the Soviet Union’s population of horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs was destroyed, in some cases by more than half.37

Liquidation of the Kulaks

To break the resistance, the regime created a class enemy: the “kulak.” Supposedly representing a class of wealthy, exploitative peasants, the term was applied without careful thought to anyone who opposed collectivization, or simply to the most competent and successful farmers.37 In 1929, Stalin declared his intention to “liquidate the kulaks as a class”.37 What followed was a state-organized terror campaign. Kulaks were divided into three categories. The first, “counter-revolutionary activists,” were arrested and either shot or sent to the Gulag. The second and third categories, along with their families, were stripped of all possessions—land, homes, tools, everything—and forcibly moved by the millions to the most distant and harsh regions of Siberia and Central Asia to perform forced labor.34 At least 1.2 million people were affected in the first year alone.37

The Holodomor: Death by Starvation

The culmination of this war on the peasantry was the terror-famine of 1932-1933, an event known in Ukraine as the Holodomor, or “death by starvation”.40 Having destroyed the agricultural productivity of the nation’s most fertile regions, the state then imposed impossibly high grain procurement quotas on the new collective farms.39 Activist brigades swept through villages, seizing all the food they could find, including the seed set aside for the next year’s planting.

The result was a man-made famine of disastrous levels, particularly in Ukraine, a region with a strong sense of national pride that Stalin wanted to destroy.39 As millions began to starve, the Soviet state closed the borders of Ukraine to prevent anyone from fleeing.39 An extremely harsh law, the “Law of Spikelets,” made taking even a handful of grain from a collective field punishable by death. While its people resorted to eating grass, bark, and in some cases, each other, the Soviet government was exporting millions of tons of grain to the West to fund its industrialization drive.40 This was not a policy failure; it was, as many historians now conclude, a purposeful act of killing a whole group of people.39 The most reliable estimates place the death toll from the Holodomor at 3.9 million people, with some estimates ranging as high as 7 million.40

B. Case Study: China’s Great Leaps into Famine and Chaos

The Chinese Communist Party, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, followed the Soviet blueprint with even more disastrous results. Mao’s attempts to accelerate China’s transition to communism unleashed two decades of unimaginable suffering.

The Great Leap Forward (1958-1962)

In 1958, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, a radical campaign to launch China past its industrial competitors and into a fully communist society in a matter of years.42 The policy combined forced collectivization on an even larger scale than in the USSR with strange and destructive industrial plans, most famously the call for every village to produce steel in “backyard furnaces”.42 Peasants were forced to melt down their own farming tools, pots, and pans, producing millions of tons of useless, low-quality pig iron while neglecting the crops in the fields.42

Driven by extreme belief in the ideology and a climate of fear where local officials dared not report bad news, the central government set wildly unrealistic grain quotas. Believing the fake reports of bumper harvests, the state proceeded to take nearly all the grain produced, leaving the rural population with nothing.42 The result was the single largest famine in recorded human history.36 Conservative estimates place the death toll at 30 million people; some scholars argue it could be as high as 55 million.36 It was a disaster of such huge size that it was almost unnoticed by the outside world, a silent holocaust created by pure ideology.44

The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)

Having been pushed to the side within the party after the disastrous Great Leap Forward, Mao launched the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in 1966 to get rid of his rivals and re-establish his total control.45 It was a call for the nation’s youth to rise up and destroy the “Four Olds”: old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits.45 Mao mobilized millions of students into extreme unofficial military groups known as the Red Guards and let them loose on the country.45

What followed was a decade of violent, destructive chaos. China was plunged into a virtual civil war as competing Red Guard groups battled each other in the streets.46 Schools and universities were closed for years, creating a “lost generation” deprived of education.47 Intellectuals, teachers, scientists, and even high-ranking party officials were publicly humiliated in brutal “struggle sessions,” beaten, imprisoned, murdered, or driven to suicide.46 Valuable cultural history—ancient temples, libraries, books, and artworks—was systematically destroyed in an attack on China’s own history.45 By the time Mao’s death in 1976 brought the madness to an end, an estimated 500,000 to 2 million people had been killed, and the nation’s society and economy were left in ruins.45

C. Case Study: Venezuela’s 21st Century Collapse

For those who might argue that these horrors are things from a past time, the recent collapse of Venezuela serves as a clear, modern-day reminder that the laws of economics are timeless and unforgiving.

The Modern-Day Example

Under the socialist governments of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela embarked on a “Bolivarian Revolution” that implemented the core policies of the communist playbook.48 Praised by many Western idealists, these policies have led to a predictable and complete societal collapse, demonstrating that the ideology’s failures are not dependent on time or place.48

The Familiar Pattern

The Venezuelan government took government control of huge parts of the economy, from agriculture to the vital oil industry.48 As in every other case, state control led to terrible mismanagement, corruption, and a collapse in production. The country with the world’s largest proven oil reserves became unable to pump its own oil.48

Simultaneously, the government imposed strict price controls on all basic foods and goods.49 The intent was to make these items affordable, but the result was to make it unprofitable for anyone to produce, import, or sell them. This created disastrous shortages. Venezuelans began spending their days in massive lines, hoping to buy rationed food.48 The currency was destroyed by hyperinflation. A 2016 survey found that nearly 75% of the population had lost an average of 19 pounds in body weight due to malnutrition; a year later, that number had risen to 24 pounds.48

The outcome is a humanitarian crisis in a nation that should be wealthy. Widespread starvation, a collapsed healthcare system, and one of the largest refugee crises in the world are the direct results of applying the same socialist principles that failed so catastrophically in the 20th century.48 Venezuela proves that the harvest of sorrow is not an unusual event in history; it is the inevitable crop yielded by the seeds of communism.

Conclusion: A Warning from History

The history of the 20th century is stained with the blood of nearly 100 million people who were killed for a beautiful and impossible idea. The ghost of communism continues to haunt our world, its tempting promise of a perfect world still finding acceptance in the hearts of the young and the idealistic. But this report has demonstrated that the promise is an illusion, and the path to it leads only to disaster.

Synthesize the Argument

The argument made clear in this report is that communism is not a good idea that was simply implemented badly. It is a fundamentally flawed ideology whose catastrophic failures are built into its very core.

It begins with a war on human nature. By denying the natural human drives for autonomy, competence, and improving one’s own life, it creates a system that can only be imposed by force. It seeks to create a “new man” but succeeds only in creating a slave, just a small part in a huge, uncaring system.16

It continues with a war on economic reality. By abolishing private property and market prices, it destroys the only known mechanism for logical economic planning. It blinds itself to the information needed to organize a complex society, guaranteeing inefficiency, constant shortages, and poverty.17

The Inevitable Result

The political result of this two-front war on reality is unavoidable and complete. The “transitional” state that is supposed to wither away must instead become a permanent, all-powerful totalitarian system. It needs a secret police to crush dissent, concentration camps to house its “enemies,” and a monopoly on truth to hide its failures. The Gulag, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution are not unusual mistakes in the communist project; they are its most genuine and logical results.30 They are the necessary tools for a state attempting the impossible task of bending reality to the will of an ideology. The terror is not a bug; it is the central feature of the operating system.

A Direct Appeal to the Reader

To the young person who sees the injustices of the world and feels the pull of this utopian promise, the evidence of history offers a serious and urgent warning. Do not be tricked by the simplicity of the theory. Look, instead, at the brutal difficulty of putting it into practice. The promise of equality has delivered only the equality of the breadline and the mass grave. The promise of liberation has delivered only the most complete forms of slavery. The promise of a workers’ paradise has delivered only a hell on earth.

The lesson of the 20th century, a lesson paid for with a mountain of skulls, is this: trying to create an impossible heaven always creates a very real hell. To ignore this lesson is not just to be a “historical fool,” as W.L. Webb wrote of those who had not read Solzhenitsyn; it is to risk making it possible for it to happen again.32 The attraction of communism is the attraction of a shortcut to justice, but it is a path that leads over a cliff. The most caring, just, and truly forward-thinking act is to learn from the past, to honor the victims by remembering how they died, and to reject the deadly ideology that killed them.

References and Further Reading

For those who wish to explore this subject in greater depth and verify the claims made in this report, the following works are essential. They represent some of the most important and expert research on the theory and practice of communism.

  • Applebaum, Anne. Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. New York: Anchor Books, 2017. 41
  • Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. 30
  • Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 41
  • Courtois, Stéphane, et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. 35
  • Hayek, Friedrich. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944. 33
  • Mises, Ludwig von. Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981. 17
  • Pipes, Richard. Communism: A History. New York: Modern Library, 2001. 29
  • Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1991. 22
  • Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. 31

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.


Works cited

  1. Communism Isn’t Cool, It’s Deadly – Standing for Freedom Center, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2024/05/02/communism-isnt-cool-its-deadly/
  2. Communism, the youth, and the fight for revolution | The Communist, accessed August 2, 2025, https://communist.red/communism-the-youth-and-the-fight-for-revolution/
  3. Why do so many young people like communism? : r/Capitalism – Reddit, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Capitalism/comments/pyocv2/why_do_so_many_young_people_like_communism/
  4. Che Guevara | Biography, Facts, Books, Fidel Castro, & Death | Britannica, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Che-Guevara
  5. Che Guevara (1928-1967) | American Experience | Official Site | PBS, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/castro-che-guevara-1928-1967/
  6. Counting Victims of the Castro Regime: Nearly 11,000 to Date …, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/counting-victims-of-the-castro-regime-nearly-11000-to-date/
  7. Che Guevara was a sadist | The Spectator, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/che-guevara-was-a-sadist/
  8. Demystifying Che Guevara, Cold-Blooded Communist – Atlas Network, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.atlasnetwork.org/articles/demystifying-che-guevara-cold-blooded-communist
  9. Exposing the Real Che Guevara – Young America’s Foundation, accessed August 2, 2025, https://yaf.org/news/exposing-the-real-che-guevara/
  10. Quote by Ernesto “Che” Guevara: “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof…” – Goodreads, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/728878-to-send-men-to-the-firing-squad-judicial-proof-is
  11. Classless society | Equality, Utopia & Communism | Britannica, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/classless-society
  12. Key Tenets of Marxism VS America’s Philosophical Foundations | Free Thinking Ministries, accessed August 2, 2025, https://freethinkingministries.com/key-tenets-of-marxism-vs-americas-philosophical-foundations/
  13. Marx’s theory of human nature – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_human_nature
  14. On Human Nature – Marxist-Leninist Reading Hub, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.mlreadinghub.org/articles/articles/on-human-nature
  15. Human Nature and Communism – Libcom.org, accessed August 2, 2025, https://libcom.org/article/human-nature-and-communism
  16. The Psychological Absurdity of Communism – Center for Christian …, accessed August 2, 2025, https://ccta.regent.edu/the-psychological-absurdity-of-communism/
  17. Economic calculation problem – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
  18. Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge, accessed August 2, 2025, https://cdn.mises.org/rae7_2_5_2.pdf
  19. Socialist calculation debate – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate
  20. ECON 307 – Calculation Debate – Hayek and Keynes, accessed August 2, 2025, http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/walker_d/econ_307_-_calculation_debate_-_hayek_and_keynes.htm
  21. Dictatorship of the proletariat – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
  22. The Russian Revolution by Richard Pipes, Paperback | Barnes …, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-russian-revolution-richard-pipes/1002418986
  23. Bolsheviks Seize Power – Seventeen Moments in Soviet History, accessed August 2, 2025, https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1917-2/bolsheviks-seize-power/
  24. The impact of the Bolshevik consolidation of power | Teaching History – Informit, accessed August 2, 2025, https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.525623191039150
  25. Bolshevik Consolidation of Power – GCSE History by Clever Lili, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.gcsehistory.com/faq/bolconsolid.html
  26. Russian Civil War – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
  27. www.pbs.org, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/deep/kgb_deep_ref_detail.htm#:~:text=It%20was%20founded%20by%20Felix,the%20notorious%20NKVD%20and%20KGB.
  28. Russia’s Shadowy Century of Spying and Secret Police – Spyscape, accessed August 2, 2025, https://spyscape.com/article/russias-century-of-secret-police-back-ops-infiltrations
  29. The Russian Revolution | Penguin Random House Higher Education, accessed August 2, 2025, https://penguinrandomhousehighereducation.com/book/?isbn=9780679736608
  30. The Great Terror (book) – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Terror_(book)
  31. www.penguin.co.uk, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/371493/the-gulag-archipelago-by-solzhenitsyn-aleksandr/9781784871512#:~:text=A%20vast%20canvas%20of%20camps,in%20hope%20but%20in%20despair.
  32. The Gulag Archipelago – Penguin Books, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/371493/the-gulag-archipelago-by-solzhenitsyn-aleksandr/9781784871512
  33. Criticism of communist party rule – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_communist_party_rule
  34. Great Famine Strikes the Soviet Union | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/great-famine-strikes-soviet-union
  35. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression …, accessed August 2, 2025, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Black_Book_of_Communism.html?id=H1jsgYCoRioC
  36. www.asianstudies.org, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/chinas-great-leap-forward/#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20deaths%20directly%20related,often%20cited%20is%20thirty%20million.
  37. Brutal Crime against Rural Life: Collectivisation in the Soviet Union …, accessed August 2, 2025, https://communistcrimes.org/en/brutal-crime-against-rural-life-collectivisation-soviet-union
  38. Stalin’s Policy of Collectivisation and the Soviet Famines: A Historical Overview, accessed August 2, 2025, https://explaininghistory.org/2023/03/28/stalins-policy-of-collectivisation-and-the-soviet-famines-a-historical-overview/
  39. The Holodomor: A Tragic Famine or Genocide Against the Ukrainian Peoples? – The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College, accessed August 2, 2025, https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1882&context=student_scholarship
  40. Holodomor | Holocaust and Genocide Studies | College of Liberal Arts, accessed August 2, 2025, https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor
  41. The Holodomor: Historical Perspectives on the Ukraine Famine of 1932-33 – Bard Digital Commons, accessed August 2, 2025, https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=history_mat
  42. China’s Great Leap Forward – Association for Asian Studies, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/chinas-great-leap-forward/
  43. China’s great famine: 40 years later – PMC, accessed August 2, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127087/
  44. Great Leap Forward famine | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/great-leap-forward-famine
  45. The Cultural Revolution – The National Archives, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-cultural-revolution/
  46. The Cultural Revolution: all you need to know about China’s political convulsion, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/11/the-cultural-revolution-50-years-on-all-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-political-convulsion
  47. History of Modern China Unit 14 – Cultural Revolution: Impact and Legacy – Fiveable, accessed August 2, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/history-modern-china/unit-14
  48. Crisis in Venezuela – Wikipedia, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela
  49. Price Controls and Food Access: Lessons from Venezuela – ANH Academy, accessed August 2, 2025, https://www.anh-academy.org/community/blogs/price-controls-and-food-access-lessons-from-venezuela
  50. en.wikipedia.org, accessed August 2, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism