Archaeologies of the Future: Part III--What is Victory?

Soob:

The concept here is interesting. In lieu of official recognition of America's victory in Iraq by the outgoing administration and in an effort to deprive the incoming administration from claiming victory in a war they clearly identified as lost, ZombieTime has subverted the traditional method of triumphalism (via the state) and placed in the hands of the populace.

Soob is writing about a viral attempt by Iraq war supporters to declare victory in lieu of an official declaration. The "Victory in Iraq" campaign has gone massively viral, although it is of yet unnoticed by the MSM and much of the population.

Victory and defeat are incredibly subjective things. There are few clear-cut instances of the victor's supremacy and the loser's annihilation in history (such as WWII), but those instances are always the ones remembered in the public memory. Messy stalemates like the War of 1812 and Korea are more the case. In irregular warfare,  perceptions of victory and defeat often are crucial elements of the war itself. If a population believes that there is no point in resisting, it will not resist. Likewise, if the counterinsurgent's population believes the war is lost, the implicit ceiling on the level and duration of the counterinsurgent's operations is lowered.

Because irregular warfare is not measured by typical military metrics, it is inherently more subjective than even the messiest conventional conflict. This lends itself to a purely idealistic as opposed to materialistic interpretation of victory and defeat; will is the most important factor. Losses in irregular conflicts are often seen by elements within the losing side as the fault of "enemies within"--if the domestic population hadn't stabbed the troops in the back, victory would have been in sight. Algeria is the classic example of the "stab in the back" mythos applied to irregular conflicts in that loss actually triggered a terrorist campaign against the French homeland.

As such, there is a battle of perception between different political factions within both sides to define what victory is (and deny it to their adversaries). Complicating this is the perception war that occurs long after the war is finished, as it becomes a signifier for other elements of culture or political warfare in the public mind. Vietnam is a signifier in the American life for the generational conflict of the 1960s and the culture war between left-liberals and conservatives. Certain images (such as that of the hippie spitting on the returning soldier), regardless of their accuracy or representation, embed themselves in the public mind and forever define an era.

Victory is not entirely subjective, but it in many cases it will be impossible to come up with an purely objective assessment.

Comments

[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."

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2007/07/war-or-not-war-victory-or-defeat.html

[A.E.]

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).

[A.E.]

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