The ignorance is astounding. Your statement is a false equivalency, because it treats fundamentally different things as if they are the same simply because they all involve the use of military force.
The 20 year war you and your buddies and I fought was authorized by Congress, funded year after year by Congress, sustained by formal alliances, and governed by rules of occupation, counterinsurgency, nation building, and international agreements. What happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was not a failure to “get something done,” it was a series of deliberate political choices to occupy, stabilize, and rebuild states, whether those choices were wise or not. Those wars existed because Congress repeatedly chose to keep them going, and because the missions themselves were designed to be long term.
What the convicted felon claims to have done in Venezuela is not the same category of action. A short term strike or seizure, even if dramatic, is not equivalent to ending a war, winning a war, or accomplishing the same objectives. Capturing or killing a leader, or launching a brief operation, does not resolve insurgency, governance, legitimacy, security, or regional stability. The reason Afghanistan took twenty years is not because presidents were too timid, it is because dismantling armed movements and building a functioning state is orders of magnitude harder than launching an attack.
There is also a legal and factual mismatch. The wars after 9/11 were conducted under explicit congressional authorization, massive troop deployments, and sustained public funding. What the convicted felon describes is unilateral action claimed under executive authority, with no authorization to occupy, govern, or extract resources, and no legal framework for what comes next. Saying “this took four hours” is not proof of success, it is evidence that the objective was narrower and completely different.
Most importantly, equating the two erases what service members actually endured. You were not fighting because presidents failed to pull a trigger hard enough or fast enough. You were fighting because the mission Congress approved required holding territory, protecting civilians, training local forces, and trying to create a durable political outcome. A quick strike does not substitute for that, and it never has.
So the comparison fails on mission, scale, legality, and reality. Ending a war and launching a short term operation are not the same thing, and pretending they are cheapens both the sacrifice of those who served and the seriousness of what war actually is.