What constitutes "winning" a war?

[elsuper]

A topic on what constitutes "winning" a war would be interesting.

 

I think "winning" should be defined by a given side's completion of its own goals, and must therefore considered subjective. Victory could be considered proportional, though, to the number or relative importance of goals achieved, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

Taking the topic of superpower wars in the thread this spun out of: it is my personal belief that a shooting war between nuclear-armed states carries a high risk of escalating to the use of those nuclear arms. Both sides are capable of fulfilling a goal of inflicting massive damage to the other, but not of fulfilling the obvious goal of protecting their own lands and population. Result: No winner by any standard that isn't trying to cause an apocalypse, because no side is capable of achieving all of their core goals of self-preservation.

 

Regarding asymmetric warfare, esp. Iraq and Afghanistan, goals are asymmetric as well. The U.S. set the goal of first defeating and dismantling the forces of the existing government (quick and straightforward) but then set the additional goal of setting up a friendly, stable government capable of maintaining order and preventing a terrorism-enabling power vacuum, defending the country against outside attacks, defeating and eradicating insurgency (ha!), (to a lesser extent) preserving human rights, and remaining at least non-hostile to the US. What other examples are there of anything like this except maybe the occupation and reconstruction of the Confederacy, and later Japan and Germany? The difference being that all those examples were pacified and devastated by years of total war, and not riven by internal strife. Such mission creep makes the achievement of all objectives difficult if not impossible.

 

On the other side, the objective of an insurgency is typically to survive and frustrate the occupiers enough to give up and leave, making their victory much more likely.

 

Other thoughts?

[jaguar]

Making opponent surrender?

[Director]

Winning = Completing one's objectives in an acceptable amount of time while taking acceptable losses, IMO.

 

Yeah, I left that one pretty vague, but it's the best I could come up with

[kalev60]

Noone exept armdealers really win in wars:D

[Solomon]

I think "winning" should be defined by a given side's completion of its own goals, and must therefore considered subjective. Victory could be considered proportional, though, to the number or relative importance of goals achieved, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition.

...

I meant the topic to be broader than that. Centuries ago, the concept of "side" was defined by the King or Queen, and winning/losing were defined in relation to the monarch's goals. In modern democracies, it's both simpler and more intricate - simpler in that you could ask whether a voter would prefer $10,000 per capita to be spent on a war or put into their pocket through reduced taxes and improved government services, and more complicated in that it's extremely hard to estimate the long term impact of a war, and therefore much easier to cast a fog over it.

 

It's not hard to see who benefits most short term from a war - politicians in power and the military industry - but getting support in a democracy for something that has yielded "sub-zero returns" to the voters at least since WW2 is worth casting an eye over.

[Malice]

When you have razed every city to the ground. Slaughtered every man, woman and child. And salted the earth so nothing ever grows again.

[SoS]

Contracts for corporations (especially ones you own stock in) equals victory in modern era.

 

I prefer tallest pile of skulls wins.

[elsuper]

I meant the topic to be broader than that. Centuries ago, the concept of "side" was defined by the King or Queen, and winning/losing were defined in relation to the monarch's goals. In modern democracies, it's both simpler and more intricate - simpler in that you could ask whether a voter would prefer $10,000 per capita to be spent on a war or put into their pocket through reduced taxes and improved government services, and more complicated in that it's extremely hard to estimate the long term impact of a war, and therefore much easier to cast a fog over it.

 

It's not hard to see who benefits most short term from a war - politicians in power and the military industry - but getting support in a democracy for something that has yielded "sub-zero returns" to the voters at least since WW2 is worth casting an eye over.

 

Would you consider a Pyrrhic victory to be a misnomer, i.e. not defensibly a victory (winning)? I consider there to be a difference between having a victory and having that victory be worthwhile.

 

Although it could also be, as you said, a matter of short-term vs. long-term. That is, you can defeat your enemy in every way you consider important, but spend so much doing so that another enemy will overtake you.

[fistofdoom]

When you have razed every city to the ground. Slaughtered every man, woman and child. And salted the earth so nothing ever grows again.

you belong in a box, with a lock on it

 

also thats funny

[Dwemyrn]

I think "winning" should be defined by a given side's completion of its own goals, and must therefore considered subjective. Victory could be considered proportional, though, to the number or relative importance of goals achieved, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

Taking the topic of superpower wars in the thread this spun out of: it is my personal belief that a shooting war between nuclear-armed states carries a high risk of escalating to the use of those nuclear arms. Both sides are capable of fulfilling a goal of inflicting massive damage to the other, but not of fulfilling the obvious goal of protecting their own lands and population. Result: No winner by any standard that isn't trying to cause an apocalypse, because no side is capable of achieving all of their core goals of self-preservation.

 

Regarding asymmetric warfare, esp. Iraq and Afghanistan, goals are asymmetric as well. The U.S. set the goal of first defeating and dismantling the forces of the existing government (quick and straightforward) but then set the additional goal of setting up a friendly, stable government capable of maintaining order and preventing a terrorism-enabling power vacuum, defending the country against outside attacks, defeating and eradicating insurgency (ha!), (to a lesser extent) preserving human rights, and remaining at least non-hostile to the US. What other examples are there of anything like this except maybe the occupation and reconstruction of the Confederacy, and later Japan and Germany? The difference being that all those examples were pacified and devastated by years of total war, and not riven by internal strife. Such mission creep makes the achievement of all objectives difficult if not impossible.

 

On the other side, the objective of an insurgency is typically to survive and frustrate the occupiers enough to give up and leave, making their victory much more likely.

 

Other thoughts?

Charlie Sheen gives everyone free Cocaine and Hookers?

[Dwemyrn]

When you have razed every city to the ground. Slaughtered every man, woman and child. And salted the earth so nothing ever grows again.

You alright there, buddy?

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

[Kamehameha]

According to Sun Tzu the best way to win a war is to win without fighting and capture a country whole.

[Glorious Littleton]

Destroy their political infrastructure, take resources in forms of business ventures.

[Kamehameha]

Destroy their political infrastructure, take resources in forms of business ventures.

That worked out well in Iraq.

[Arthur James]

Winning = Capture a nation whole without fighting.

[Bilal the Great]

Wipes out their people, culture, history and pretty much everything that marked their existence on Earth.

[BIBS]

it's basically when one side has completed it's aimed goals with the least amount of bloodshed on their side as possible while inflicting a heavy tole on their opponent.

[Brooklyn666]

Whatever FOX "News" tells me it is.

[Arthur James]

Constitution Monarchy.....in each of their own society.

[Lu Xun]

You're assuming a war, of all things, can't be win-win in that both sides achieve their strategic aims and could be said to be better off without having started the war.

[Kamehameha]

You're assuming a war, of all things, can't be win-win in that both sides achieve their strategic aims and could be said to be better off without having started the war.

I think to keep a nation healthy there should always be skirmishing on the borders. It's that conflict that keeps society in touch with reality and not floating away in the useless ideologies of the bourgeois.

[WISD0MTREE]

I think to keep a nation healthy there should always be skirmishing on the borders. It's that conflict that keeps society in touch with reality and not floating away in the useless ideologies of the bourgeois.

War is peace... 

[Prefontaine]

I think "winning" should be defined by a given side's completion of its own goals, and must therefore considered subjective. Victory could be considered proportional, though, to the number or relative importance of goals achieved, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

It's simple. Are you on Prefontaine's side? 1) Yes: You are winning. 2) No: You are not winning.

[Arthur James]

War isn't a form of peace, but a conflict of the two powers.

 

I think to keep a nation healthy there should always be skirmishing on the borders. It's that conflict that keeps society in touch with reality and not floating away in the useless ideologies of the bourgeois.

Please check your in-game message that I sent you