War is not a game that you can win

[Bjorn Against]

We are constantly hearing the question of whether or not we can win in Iraq.

Well that question was settled long before we even went in there, and the answer is no.

When go to war it means you have already lost because you have either failed at diplomacy and were unable to stop the violence from ever happening, or you did not even try. Either way you have lost.

You can not win when hundreds of thousands of people are being killed. You can not win when hundreds of billions are being drained from our treasury while Americans are forced to live without access to health care. You can not win when your government officials are standing up before the people and lying to them.

The very notion that war is a game that can be won is absolutely sickening. This is not a game, it a very serious situation and no matter the final outcome we know it will be disastrous. We know a country be in ruins, we know we will be in massive debt, we know many of our soldiers will not return, and we know many innocent Iraqis will be dead.

There can be no victory, the war was lost the moment it began.

[FightingIrish]

1. In an illegal war there can be no victory.

Talking about victory makes as much sense as talking about a victorious mugger or a victorious rapist. I agree, we lost when we invaded on false pretexts and outright lies. Real victory will be bringing down the tyrants that got us into this mess.

[Hosnon]

2. I disagree, in part:

I disagree that war can't be won.

Physical force is one option among many that are available to achieve a desired end. (Ideally, it is the last option but many times (Iraq) it is not.)

You define war as a failure of diplomacy. I agree that under that definition war is per se failure.

However, if you define war as one option among many that are available to achieve a desired end then war is not per se failure. Here, it only becomes failure when it fails to achieve the desired end.

As a side note, this war is a failure under both definitions.

[Bjorn Against]

3. If you have to go to war innocent people will die, and there is no victory in that

There are some cases like World War II for example that it would have been near impossible to stop any bloodshed, but even in those extreme cases going to war is never a good option. You may be able to make a good argument that war is at times necessary option, but it is most certainly not a good option.

War ALWAYS has horrible consequences, and there is quite simply no real victory when you have thousands of dead bodies.

War should not be treated as if it were a football game, the consequences are always so horrible that it should be treated as something to be avoided at all costs and we should recognize it as a failure every time it happens.

[Hosnon]

4. I agree that war always has horrible consequences and should be the last option.

War can (and perhaps should) be considered a failure of diplomacy every time. However, that doesn't mean that the war itself is a failure every time.

One can think of war as one option among many that are available to achieve a desired end. In that case, victory occurs when that end is achieved while defeat occurs when that end is not achieved.

Example: Country X desires mineral A in Country Y. After failed trade negotiations, Country X invades Country Y for mineral A.

This, in itself, can be seen as a failure of diplomacy. However, if Country X gains mineral A as a result of the war, the war itself was a success.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. "if Country X gains mineral A as a result of the war, the war itself was a success."

Ding!

Captain Obvious here, as expected.

The goal of the Military Industrial Complex is to make as much money as possible, through the use and reordering of arms, the sale of arms to all sides, reconstruction of what has been destroyed (no reason to "shock and awe" except to give Halliburton an opportunity), etc.

Consider Exxon profits and Cheney's Halliburton stock value. This war is a roaring success and it just keeps on going and going and going...out money right into the machine's pockets.

The faces in government will change but the machine must be disabled. This will be far harder than leaving Iraq (the machine will fight against losing opportunity).

[Hosnon]

6. That example was a hypothetical war.

Change "mineral" to "Princess" if it helps to distinguish the hypothetical from Iraq.

And obtaining Princess A only results in the success of the war if the purpose of the war was to obtain Princess A.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Sadly we are not in a hypothetical war. Your example is good.

[Hosnon]

8. Well of course...it was a thought exercise to convey a point. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Sadly we have no conclusions on how to end the hypothetical war.

Democratic control of the lower parts of the government are a good start but mass action will be required to actually stop the machine.

I wish more people would think about what we actually face, in terms of the corporate and military forces, their political lackeys, and the bitter, resentful people who will always vote for the above no matter what. How to agree that this is what we face, and that its agenda does not include us, except in the past tense?

And just how the competing arcs of our desire for freedom and human values and their self-interest and love of dominance and compensation for feeling "less than" will have to meet and seek resolution?

"Think, what to do?" -Master, "Mad Max beyond Thunderdome"

[Hosnon]

10. Ok. The point I am/was trying to convey with my responses here is/was

that wars can or cannot be victorious depending upon how "victory" is defined.

The OP simply defined war in such a way that victory was definitionally impossible. I pointed out that if victory is defined in relation to the purpose of the war, it is possible.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Fully agreed, and your point was well said.

We would do well to reinforce your point, as I have. So long as people imagine that we are after democracy or whatever reason they've chosen for being in Iraq this week, America loses and capitalists win.

[Hosnon]

12. Good stuff:) Have a great one! nt.

[sampsonblk]

13. WW II, US Civil War are Failures???

I think not.

[Bjorn Against]

15. A lot of people died in both the civil war and World War II

So yes they were failures, as are all wars. If you have to go to war you have lost. Period. That doesn't mean you can not make the argument that there was no way we could have had victory in such a situation, but you can not say anything was won when there are thousands or even millions of dead bodies lying in your wake.

[AtomicKitten]

14. War is used by the Republicans to bludgeon Democrats.

Our history is littered with examples.