it is the fault of the leadership, who tells the politicians what they want to hear, like that we're making progress in Afgan and that we need to stay there.
First, you have no idea what the military leadership actually tells the politicians. Second, remember how the chain of command is structured. The President is at the top. He sets the objectives and the parameters in which the military does its job. Accordingly, he's deciding what "progress in Afghanistan" looks like, not the military leadership.
Were guys like Eisenhower and McArthur (guys who fought the last war we won) better generals than Austin Miller or Norman Schwarzkopf? Maybe, maybe not. They had an easier job in terms of the tools at their disposal. The politicians told them to secure the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and told them that it essentially didn't matter what it costs, how many casualties we took, or what we did to civilians.
Since then, the politicians have put all kinds of restrictions and caveats on the military. Don't get us into a broader war, especially with a strong power like the Soviet Union or China. Don't make me look bad by having a lot of casualties. Don't piss off Muslims and Muslim-mollycoddlers in Western Europe by killing religious leaders and destroying their mosques.
Consider MacArthur. He and Nimitz completely destroyed and pacified Imperial Japan. Huge job, very risky. However, we're still farting around with the two-bit handjob Kim family in North Korea. The big difference is that we let guys like MacArthur do their jobs in Japan but didn't let them do it in Korea. We should have finished them and China off like MacArthur advocated when they were still eating cats and crapping outside rather than waiting until they had nuclear weapons. Well, that was the decision of the politicians, not MacArthur's failure. Well, the same kind of crap followed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Now a good number of those same leaders, who have failed to win any wars under their command, want to tell the American public that President Trump isn't fit for the office so we should elect a senile placeholder until he can be thrown out of office for who the Dems really want?
Like MacArthur, they want a CiC who will listen to them, and Biden will likely do so more than Trump does. Does this mean I'll vote for Biden? No, because I'm not willing to surrender to the BLM and Chicks with Dicks freak shows by accepting a forfeiture of the judiciary to people who will tyrannically force those agenda just to get a president who listens to the military better. However, is it a mark against Trump? Yes.
You could run off every O-7 and above in the entire military, and replace them with E-7's, and we'd be better off.
Yeah, I'm not buying that. Sorry, Bro.
Now it seemed like a win at the time - we kicked them out of Kuwait and killed a bunch of them, then the rest went home and nothing changed in Iraq. It was as much of a victory as if after Gettysburg, Lincoln signed a cease fire and 10 years later J. Davis was still the leader of the Confederacy.
Again, another move by politicians. Schwarzkopf could have finished off Hussein and beat the hell out of Iraq until they were civilized. We just didn't let him do it.