« Archaeologies of the Future: Part II--Reveries on EBO | Main | Debate Some Doctrine »

November 26, 2008


Sven Ortmann

"The most basic condition that needs to be fulfilled is that a won war actually improved the situation for the country that 'won' it in comparison to a "defeat" or no war at all."



In this light, Iraq is a failure--it actually degraded America's strategic situation. But this is a holistic view in light of our geostrategic objectives--most analysts only consider the war in and of itself.

Sven Ortmann

And to consider "the whole picture" (that's too large to be really understood and analyzed in anything resembling rational methods) means to have a great excuse for whatever one wants as result, especially if the result is pro the action taken.

example: "Without the war, disasters a, b, c and d would have happened."
That's impossible to falsify, just like every imaginary consequence that's only distantly related to the conflict at hand.

We have two choices; decide by guts (which leads to way too many need less wars according to mankind's experience) or to at least attempt a rational analysis. The latter cannot include far-flung aspects, but needs to focus on directly related, measurable effects. The result will be an incomplete result because we don't know how to value life/health to wealth and to immaterial goods.

In the end, "victory or not" is a political decision for every single citizen.

The Iraq war offers very few hints that point at a victory, though - mostly the lack of an enemy triumphal procession on the battlefield (to date).


Hence the attempt by certain individuals to push their own definition of victory.

The comments to this entry are closed.