In risk, my team’s objective was to obtain either no wars, or alliances across two thirds of the board. Should we achieve this objective, we would effectively win the game. While on a risk board, the strategic maneuvers and preferred outcome of the game was relatively simple, in the modern day world, nothing is as easy. Each team’s objective in essence represented a different country in today’s world. Perhaps, for the countries symbolized on the board, accomplishing their objectives would constitute “winning” in their minds. For example, the red state’s goal of possession of the territories surrounding their motherland of Ukraine could be construed as winning for the nationalists, but who can really define winning? Although the Ukrainians may have achieved their goal, did they really win? They may be in a state of economic or social turmoil due to all the battles they fought, or they may have lost many troops in the fighting. The word winning can be taken to mean all sorts of things, and I think it’s incredibly hard to apply a single working definition to it.
Today, “winning” for a country like the United States, at this point, would involve economic stability, improved welfare, advancements domestically, improved foreign relations, and defeating terrorism. These broad items would only allow us to win short term however—eventually, our goals will change and we will no longer have “won”. In terms of the war on terror, people talk all the time about “winning” wars, and especially this war. The thing is, wars rarely have a defined winner and loser. Sure, one side is victorious, but they lose troops, lose support, lose morale, and lose standing in the international community, so although they are technically the “winner” of the battle, the term is applied only in the sense that they don’t have to make reparations.
In general, I think winning in the world today entails a nation maintaining its identity, political system, economy, and standing internationally. But dependant on the conflict, the meaning of “winning” fluctuates and evolves.
First of all, I really like your title. Everybody's hands go UP. Anyways, to comment on something more substantial...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your definition of winning in the short term. It is important to have all of those things to continue to maintain any form of power over another. I do however, disagree with you on the talk of winning the war on terror. Terrorism is a constantly evolving ideal and strategy. Because of it's evolutionary nature, I must ask if any side can actually "win"? Sure, each can have their own victories, but when really will one side concede and declare victory? Will another party be brought in to decide who won and who lost? If the coalition against terrorists are declared the victors, will the terrorists fall into obscurity and pay their reparations? Obviously, I have tons of questions about this. Most are rhetorical, of course.
Andrew-- I really don't think any side can with in terms of terrorism. After this week's security discussions, I can make the point that the war on terror itself cannot be 'won' but Obama's goal of defeating Al Qaeda is far more feasible. We can never truly defeat terrorism itself. I believe that terrorism is somewhat a never-ending cycle, because when one leader is defeated, another simply steps up to take their place, so there is never a true 'end' to the issue of terrorism.
ReplyDelete