Who Wins and Who Loses?
American victory is always judged by whether we beat the point spread
The Allies knew they won World War II despite the price paid to defeat the Axis. Or maybe it was because of the price. Now we’re too sophisticated to imagine we can win such a horrible thing as war. Grading victory on a curve is a thing. Like everything else, modern America is judged by a much higher standard.
Is the West capable of winning wars?
Winning, in effect, has a new and dangerously watered-down meaning in the Biden-Harris administration, which negligently calls for not winning, but “proportionate responses,” “demonstrating restraint” and “defending as long as it takes.” This is a sure-fire way to ensure that democracy dies.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are all playing to win. They are not defending, but on the offensive.
I don't think that is quite right. As I always say, "check the Definitions Section." I think we don't try to win because the West sets the bar for a Western victory so much higher than it sets the bar for enemy wins.
If America is in a tough fight, we’re in a “quagmire.” If an enemy is in a tough fight, they’ll “overwhelm with numbers”.
If America is facing low-level casualties after major battles, it’s a “forever war.” If an enemy is in the same situation, it’s a brilliant “frozen conflict.”
With such unbalanced standards, Western leaders—not just the current leadership here—naturally conclude we can't possibly hope to defeat enemies. As I've observed about the wildly different standards of victory:
Over the years, I've periodically addressed the issue of victory and the idea of "just what on Earth do you people expect victory to look like?" as a counter to complaints that we are losing or have lost wars. ...
[Contrast that to] the strange ability to see our foes achieve victory no matter what. Because our critics see us in detail and hardly know the broad brush strokes of foes.
Consider Iraq. Or Afghanistan—before we screwed the pooch. Critics contend that only bike-path debate levels of domestic politics in a country on our side are good enough to declare victory.
And what about our enemies? Strategypage thinks Ukraine is winning:
The Ukraine War is now in its third year and, by most standards, the Ukrainians are winning. A major factor in their success is the nearly $200 billion in military and humanitarian aid received since Russia invaded in early 2022.
The main standard to say Ukraine is losing is that Russia has conquered about a quarter of Ukraine's territory. And Ukraine may not be able to endure the casualties to liberate that land before the war peters out and Ukraine's backers in the West insist on a ceasefire to return to "normality".
Many Westerners insist Russia is winning. Russia's massive losses in men and modern equipment as well as economic isolation and financial pressures to finance the invasion are no matter. Smaller Ukraine must break in the face of larger Russia, they say. Maybe that's so. But critics of America's wars said much lower American casualties—by an order of magnitude and approaching two—were "breaking" the U.S. Army.
And this is a modern classic in the genre:
The assassinations of two Hamas leaders may be a short-term setback, analysts say, not enough to prevent the group from re-emerging intact — and possibly more radicalized.
Ah yes, the classic "fighting back only makes more jihadis" genre. What more broadly I call the "Let the Wookie win" advice.
How soon before we "again" hear how Israel "fell into a trap" set by Hamas. As if anybody starts a war expecting to get their asses kicked from one end of the battlefield to the other.
I won’t say it is the only issue, but our standards are clearly twisted since World War II. I dare you to claim that people would call "the good war" a victory if we looked at the outcome of that war the way we judge wars since then.