The Horka Blog

I am sick and tired listening to the endless debates on whether the US can “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan, or whatever the conflict du jour might be. I listen to the blather of incompetents, waiting for the moment when at least one person will ask “and what does “winning” mean to you”, but it never comes.

You would think that it would be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that you cannot even start this type of debate if you do not have agreement on what “winning” really means.

I have heard people talking in terms of decreasing the number of pot shots taken at allied soldiers (possible) or eliminating such attacks completely (impossible). Holding elections for government officials pops up frequently as a key ingredient in “winning” – although there is a monumental gap in doing so with a significant foreign military presence (possible) and doing so willingly (impossible). Many debates relate “winning” to the reduction or eradication of religious, cultural and/or economic differences (nope, not in our lifetimes). Some relate “winning” to political alignment to the west rather than to islamic countries (dream on). Some even relate winning to whether the supply of oil to the West will proceed unfettered or not (might happen as long as there is a strong military presence). Or, some relate “winning” to the creation of a secular government not directed by someone’s favourite invisible friend (you’re kidding, right?)

These are just some of the different definitions of winning I have heard, and they are very different from each other – although there are significant interactions among these different scenarios.

So please, somebody, define what you mean by “winning” before you lanuch into a useless debate!