What Does "Victory" Mean?
Monday's op-ed by Anthony Cordesman is titled "How to Lose in Afghanistan." In it, he uses the word "victory" three times. He uses the word "win" four time. He also mentions losing, and defeat. But nowhere does he define what winning is, or what losing looks like. He's pretty clear that we want to win and we don't want to lose. And he's pretty clear that victory means giving Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and General Stanley McChrystal all the resources they request and all the authority they want and protecting them from "constant micromanagement from Washington or traveling envoys."
Cordesman and many others have certainly thought about this issue a lot and probably have working definitions of success. But there's been a peculiar unwillingness to define any of this very clearly. Richard Holbrooke, when asked, said, “we’ll know it when we see it.” The strategy is, presumably, a little more distinct when detailed in White House meetings. But it's hard to avoid the concern that these folks actually have a perfectly clear vision of success but recognize that it's sufficiently ambitious that they're unwilling to define it publicly. People like the idea of victory. But do they like the idea of trying to be the first country to ever successfully nation-build in Afghanistan?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | August 31, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: jkaren | August 31, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: JkR- | August 31, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: NoBillary1 | August 31, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: bmull | September 1, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.