Let’s look at how the Oxford dictionary (askoxford.com) defines win and lose.
Win: 1) to be successful or victorious in a contest or a conflict 2) to gain as a result of success in a contest, conflict, etc.
Lose: 1) to fail to win 2) to become unable to find 3) to waste or fail to take advantage of.
Before I start saying anything out of the world, here is my take on win and lose in general.
Win is defined and measured by actions. For example, in sports, let’s say the Denver Nuggets beat the New York Knicks by 20 points which means the Nuggets wins. In sports like basketball, whichever team that scores the most points or the highest number wins. How did the Nuggets win? Well, there are many reasons to that. One of them could be that they performed on the court better than the Knicks.
Lose is also defined and measured by actions as well. Let’s stick to the Nuggets and Knicks example. The Knicks lost to the Nuggets by 20 points. One of the reasons to this failure could be that the team did not play well together as a team on the court.
Overall, if you get the highest number or score more than anybody else, you win. If you have the lowest score, you lose.
So let’s put this theory into a war situation. Let’s pick the war in Iraq because it’s an ongoing war that we all can talk about.
If the success of a war were to measure by which side has the higher number of casualties, then the Iraqis should win the war right? According to the CNN report, the U.S invasion in Iraq is responsible for at least 655,000 deaths. On the other hand, Alternet.org reported, there are at least 50,000 U.S casualties in that region. Another way of measuring a win is to decide by which side has the least number of deaths in the war, then the U.S should be considered as the winner.
When it comes to life and death situation, you can not measure win or lose in a war by the number deaths or how strong your military is. In the end, people are going to die. Look at the war in Iraq, the U.S troops is 100 percent more advanced than the Iraqi insurgents. Still, at least one U.S soldier dies everyday as we see on the news. When President Bush, politicians and new analysts say “Oh, we are winning in the war in Iraq” or “Yes, we are losing in this war,” what do you mean by that? How do you define and measure the win and the loss? When it comes to war, there are no winners. There are losers. People died on both sides regardless of the number. You can’t replace a life with money or pension. When we say, winners write history, are they really the winner? Or are they just lucky and have enough money to write history for the world to learn?
I am writing this blog out of frustration. I am sick of our leaders and news reporters tell us, Americans that we are either winning or losing in war because they themselves don’t even know how to explain what a win and a loss is. How shameful is that?
An interesting point, and many people around the world share in your frustration. Sadly, one point that many modern military leaders and those politicians who plan wars have forgotten is something that was said a long time ago by Sun Tzu. To paraphrase, the best general isn’t the one who fights and wins 100 battles, but rather the one who never had to fight and yet comes out victorious in 100 confrontations.
The problem is that with technology and attitudes prevalent in the world today, warfighters don’t think in terms they should. They think only about rules of engagement and political fallout apparently.
As to who wins and who loses, there’s not always a clear victor. Sometimes you have a tie. Yes, people die in war, that’s a fact. What people forget is that war is how humans engage in social conflict. We are animals, and just like wolves or any other animals that gather in packs, someone tries to establish their dominance.
I know people don’t want to hear that we’re animals, but we are. We just happen to be more self aware than others, and aware of our fellow humans on the far side of the planet whereas other animals may not be. Yet, we squander our special gift. We are also social creatures, and gather together for mutual defense and companionship…again, like several other species of animals. In the end, this is how we need to look at who is winning and who is losing.
Did our group establish its dominance? It isn’t a matter of territory gained or lost necessarily, nor of casualties nor of glory or financial cost. It is simple dominance.
Did we piss a figurative circle around some territory or political issue, and jump onto anyone who challenged our chosen domain? Did we make them say “uncle” as it were, and acknowledge our point of view, irregardless of whether or not it is right, wrong, or silly and pointless as being the de facto state of things?
Who wins? Whomever establishes their dominance.
Interesting article. And WOW, it’s good to hear a quote from Sun Tzu! You obviously no more than average about tactics.
Just a quick comment though, Sun Tzu is one of the best tactitions who ever lived, but you can’t always directly apply what was written then to what is happening now. Strategy is like technology; the old is not always compatible with the new.
The Administration never gave the American troops the chance to establish their dominance. When the plan for the war was being formulated, there were two plans; one for an occupational force, and one for a quick war that took Sadam out and quickly gave power to the Iraqi’s [like we did in Afghanistan].
The former plan would require somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 troops and the latter would require 200,000. The problem is Bush went forward with a plan of occupation but only provided a force of 200,000 soldiers (at its largest).
America was never given the cnahce to win the war in Iraq; never got the chance to establish dominance.
Just a quick reply to Leonidas’ comment:
>>Just a quick comment though, Sun Tzu is one of the best tactitions who ever lived, but you can’t always directly apply what was written then to what is happening now. Strategy is like technology; the old is not always compatible with the new.
Oops, it apparently cut off what I had to say.
Check out this book: Sun Tzu’s Art of War, plus Strategy Against Terror
On B&N.com…
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781929194315&itm=1
It shows just how you can apply ancient wisdom to modern situations. Most of our military mistakes could be avoided if officers read Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Ceasar, Clausewitz and actually learned the theory rather than just the ability to cite trite maxims on war.
Check out that book. It will change your way of thinking and you’ll never think in terms of “simple strategems” ever again.