How do you know when you really win a war?

[dugaresa]

Tell me, what is the litmus test that says "looks like we are the winner?"

Do they teach this at West Point or any of our other military colleges?

[orwell]

1. When you don't engage in it...n/t

[dugaresa]

2. that's a given

[tekisui]

3. There was a great line in 'In the Loop'.

The general crunched some numbers and said "12,000, that is the number."

A congresswoman asked, "That is how many you need"

Genreal-"That is how many will die. When it is over we need some troops alive for it to look like a win"


Not an exact quote.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. To the victor go the spoils (of war).

When we control their government, economy, and raw products.

That's how we know we've "won".

[dugaresa]

8. but does that include annihilation and/or subjugation of the populace?

and is it a win if your soldiers are still getting killed randomly by guerrilla like tactics?

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Oh yeah, I forgot: the conquered populace recognizes our leader as their leader.

And hey, we're fair! All people are disposable.

[guardian]

5. Per Conan

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women."

[RKP5637]

6. When Fox News finally stops hyping that one and turns to another... n/t

[NNN0LHI]

7. Historically when one side capitulates and sues for peace

[flvegan]

9. Well, first they hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner...

[Winterblues]

11. When the enemy surrenders.

When poverty throws in the towel or drugs give it up and signs ze papers or when terror surrenders to never be heard from again..Oh did you mean a real war?

[ZombieHorde]

13. +1 Traditionally, a war is over when one side surrenders.

This is one reason why wars against drugs or terror are a stupid concept. These types of wars are actually violent propaganda.

[treestar]

20. Like Cornwallis and Yorktown or Lee at Appomatux

Drugs and terror - it really can't be done. Even if Osama himself signs a surrender document, someone else can be a terrorist. It's really dumb.

[Javaman]

24. modern wars are like hitting mercury with a hammer.

You may nail it, but damn, doesn't it just go every where?

[HamdenRice]

12. War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means. When your political objectives are achieved

you've "won."

Our history -- complete surrenders in the Civil War, WW I, WW II -- have taught most of us the wrong lesson about what war is.

War for most of history and in most places is simply armed politics. When one party coerces the other to do what the first party wanted the second party to do, the war has succeeded. It does not require "victory," "defeat," "surrender," or a parade down Fifth Avenue.

[dugaresa]

14. i thought war was more about taking other people's stuff because you want it

and there is no other way of getting it, or it is in response to someone trying to take your stuff (even trade routes are stuff).

Look at the history of European land wars? That had more to do with taking key positions or stuff? English/French wars were fought for land generally.

[HamdenRice]

16. That'll do as a partial definition b/c taking others' stuff is the stuff of politics sometimes

It's just that sometimes war is about things other than pure taking of others land or property.

[slackmaster]

15. When the name you assign to it becomes the de facto standard in history books

For example, despite the insistance of a few Southerns to refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression, it's pretty clear that the Union won the American Civil War.

[HamdenRice]

18. Also: If your name comes first in the blank-blank war, you lost

I think a college professor explained that:

Russo-Japanese War -- Russia lost, Japan won
Sino-Japanese War -- China lost, Japan won
Spanish-American War -- Spain lost, America won

And so on. There are exceptions.

Anglo-Boer War -- Britain won

[timtom]

17. Clearly, when someone signs a declaration of surrender,

the other side has won.

What's that you say? That hasn't been done since WWII? Whoa. Something's not right, then.

[treestar]

19. IMO the idea is no longer applicable

In Napoleon's day, a side could "win."

Now it must have to do with some objective, like containing Al Qaeda. Though how that is entirely possible, I'm not sure. I don't see how terrorists can be contained, they could always pop up elsewhere.

I'm wondering if it has to do with securing the ungovernable parts of Pakistan somehow. It's the last place on earth that in uncontrollable, apparently. Ideal place for Al Qaeda to hang out. Make it impossible for them to leave and you might have something on preventing their terrorist attacks. Doesn't stop others, though.

[dugaresa]

22. the problem is containment becomes more like colonialism

and that is quite expensive unless you are extracting resources from the occupied territory to pay for the endeavor.

[Echo In Light]

26. And doesn't even begin to weigh in on the enormous moral dilemma of the situation

[kctim]

21. When you have defeated the enemy

and they are no longer able or willing to be a threat.

[Echo In Light]

23. "Wars" generally require at least *two* armies, which is why a psycho bully like the US picks on...

... those w/o an actual, effective military.

[RKP5637]

28. +1, Good observation!!! n/t

[Zywiec]

25. When the enemy reaches their culminating point. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. When the enemy decides to stop fighting.

Military victory is irrelevant if the enemy refuses to give up.

[SoCalDem]

29. Decades later..

Military academies seem to only teach what USED to work..or seemed to work way back when..

Our military is geared to fight "real" wars with countries , when our current and future "enemies" are frustrated religious zealots who have a death wish, some explosives & a cell phone..

[montanto]

30. Depends on the war.

The current wars we are engaged in are wars against "ideas," which you can never win. As Ho Chi Mihn said (approximately) "you can kill ten of mine for every one of yours I kill, and I'll still win." Knowing this one wonders why we get into wars against ideas, but we do, so there must be some other motivation than "winning" in the conventional sense. Someone on our side is winning, its just not us.