Victory not the Goal?

I read this morning on FoxNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/obama-victory-necessarily-goal-afghanistan/?test=latestnews

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.

Right now we are at war in Afghanistan with Al-Queda and the Taliban and those who are in a war have one thing in mind, "Victory", at least that is end result of war. Unless the war ends in a stalemate, one side in a war is going to be victorious. This brings me to an interesting point; even in a stalemate, whenever both sides decide to agree to a cease-fire, typically why this occurs is that one side knows that it is losing and if they do not find a way to end the war, they will eventually lose. So, the winning side (perhaps due to their tiredness of the war) agrees to the cease-fire. However, returning to my original point, whenever two sides go to war, both sides have the intention to win, i.e., to be victorious over their opponent(s).

So if we examine the Afghanistan War, why did the United States go into Afghanistan? This is a problematic question because the answers widely vary--some say we went into Afghanistan for drug profits, to seize land, etc., etc. However, the original intent for the US going to war in Afghanistan was that it was safe-haven for Al-Queda and the Taliban (which the US is to blame after we abandoned Afghanistan to its own devices after we saved their butts from the Soviet Union, I will accept this). We went into Afghanistan to be victorious over Al-Queda and the Taliban.

Therefore, if I take Obama's comments at face value, if victory is not the goal, then what is? Obama said:

"We're not dealing with nation states at this point. We're concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda's allies," he said. "So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can't attack the United States... We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development ... those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical," Obama told ABC News.

However, the question that I would like to ask is the following: "How can the Afghans establish a stable government and prevent Al-Queda from attacking the US without first be victorious over Al-Queda?"

In the end, true peace is only achieved through victory. If we examine the situation in North Korea, the Korean War did not end with one side being victorious over the other; instead, both sides agreed to a cease-fire but do we have peace in that region? No, we do not. The lack of peace does not entail war, but there is a considerable amount of unrest there right now because in the end the threat of North Korea was not neutralized. If we are not truly victorious against Al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan we will be right back where we are now give or a take a few years (or maybe even a decade).

I want to shift to Obama's statement of, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News. First off, Obama, no I do not know about the "notion" of Emperor Hirohito surrendering to General MacArthur, but setting that aside. Why would Obama say this? I think there are two reasons.

First reason: Bush. Some of us may remember after the fall of Baghdad and Iraqi forces surrendered, Bush stood on the Carrier deck with a huge sign behind him saying, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", and he declared victory in Iraq. Unfortunately, his words were too hasty for the bloodiest years of the war laid ahead. The media attacked Bush left and right saying that he was an idiot for declaring victory in Iraq, etc. So, it seems to me that Obama is afraid to use the word victory because he does not want to "make a mistake" of declaring victory in Afghanistan and then Al-Queda relaunch their offensive and he (Obama) be criticized in the same fashion Bush was.

Second reason: Losers are victims. We have seen a trend in society the past few decades that has said losers are victims. At certain sporting events involving children, score is not allowed to be kept because people are afraid that the losers will feel bad about themselves. Losers, in some sense, are victims because they lost. However, are losers victims? No; losers are losers; losers are what they are because they failed to be victorious. This is just the fact of the matter. As an aside, even though score is not kept at some kid sporting events, the kids are keeping score and they know who the winners and losers are.

I think that Obama thinks that Emperor Hirohito is (or was) a victim, and how dare we (the US) make the Japanese leaders stand upon the deck of the USS Missouri and sign those surrender papers! We humiliated the Japanese by making them surrender! Maybe Obama should apologize to the Japanese on his next trip around the world. (And while he is at it, let's apologize to Germany for defeating the Nazis.)

I think Obama as the mind set that being victorious over someone else is not right because it makes the defeated (i.e., the loser) feel bad about them self. Therefore, I think that Obama considers Al-Queda and the Taliban to be victims; they are not terrorists, but they are victims. They are victims because we are beating them. We cannot use the word "victory" because we make the terrorist feel bad about themselves.

Good!

We are in a war and in war one side wins, one side loses (eventually). One side is victorious, one side is defeated.