In a war, there are always two losers ?

Question

think of the war between Israel and Liban or against Irak, or the war between Iran and Irak... One war, two losers ? how people can still ask who is going to win ?

Answer 1

Warfare is different from conflict in that warfare as a whole does not necessarily need to involve conflict or fighting. Warfare can be any form of campaign or competition, to include conflict, strategically speaking.

You can wage a war without engaging in conflict.
Ideally, it is best to avoid conflict because conflict drains resources. Instead, the best way to handle warfare is not by fighting or fleeing (as in the fight-or-flight reflex) but by seeking out advantages that support and improve your own strategic positioning (politically, economically, militarily..) that, in turn, leads to your own success.
As Sun Tzu once said, "One skilled in warfare does not begin battle until the battle has already been won."

It is possible for there to be 2 "losers" in war. This type of warfare is attritious, which costs both sides more than what it was worth to fight from the start. Strategy is about seeking out ways to improve your own position that generate resources (which could be anything from money, to support of a certain group of people, etc., etc.) instead of reducing them. According to Sun Tzu, "Securing resources from the enemy is worth 20 of your own."

Engaging in conflict is necessary in some cases. Do not let the fact that avoiding conflict is usually the best idea confuse you. Often times conflict is unavoidable, and sometimes even necessary. Sometimes conflict, although costly at the time, in the end may generate rewards that far outweigh those of which had already been invested to gain new ground; Spending money to make money, in a sense.
As for the Iraq war, the war on the ground may come at a certain cost, but the end result may yield greater rewards in the end. However, the opposite could also happen. With that being said, it is impossible to know all the rewards and all the costs of moving into a new strategic position. But, in order to gain any sort of progress in war, one needs to secure advantage and resources as soon as possible.

Since this is such a complex answer, and since I'm sure my answer leads to much more questions than I have already tried to answer (although I hope I led to some sense of understanding..) let me direct you to a source that may be able help you answer this question much thoroughly.

http://www.artofwarplus.com
http://www.artofwarplus.com/wordpress (Strategy Blog)
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=892 (Who won the war? Israel or Hesbollah?)
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=937 (Iraq and Military Strategy)
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=188 (Reducing Terrorism to a nuisance..)
http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=943 (Presidential Strategy, and more on strategic positioning)

I highly recommend Gary Gagliardi's books on strategy. They are a wealth of information.
You should visit his strategy blog where he often applies strategic insight, using Sun Tzu's principles of Bing Fa, to current events. He will also answer any questions you have for him regarding strategy, and in a timely manner, too.

Hope this helped!

Answer 2

nice name for this question...

who lost the american revolution?

we sure won and then democracy has spread

israel only pulled out because a deal with the UN... the UN hasnt kept up thier side of the deal to stop people from blowing up israel

iraq .... the kurds deffinitly won there hasnt been any mass genocide attempts in the past 13 years
other than basicly some gangs still screwing with things just think of the equivilent of a bad part of LA now

but when it does settle down saying the democrats dont screw us over as ussual we will have another ally in the region and a trading partner since they are rebuilding the econemy in iraq so its not just based on oil

also... more schools more jobs... some people in iraq even have cell phones now they have got a hundred years of technology in the past 5

not to mention the vast majority of stuff we have today has came from wars everything from plastic to duct tape body armor.... if you wanna go back that far bronze iron gunpowder steel and the list goes on just the thought of war is what incourages so much new technology each year look at history the countries we see as the most advanced the greeks the roman empire, the persian empire now compare those to the areas of nomads and farmers or africa many of the wars opened up new trade routes as is still true today
plus it creates a large number of jobs

everyone is a winner in the long run its the sacrafices up front that everyone looks at though which is why its a volunteer army less than 3% of the nation is a "direct relation" to those risking thier lives for that sacrafice

so who is going to win?

Answer 3

I think in war when your fighting for something good... its ok. I mean look at the Civil War, we had a winner. Slavery is no more. A lot of people lost their lives, but look at the outcome. It's a shame it has to happen sometimes...and sometimes its used too soon, but sometimes its worth the outcome. Now Israel and Liban and all that I don't know too much about them. I have kind of given up watching the news here lately. It's too depressing.

Answer 4

Applying the words "winner and loser" to a war is inappropriate. No one really wins in a war. Both sides, or all sides, lose lives and treasure.
Having said that, though, victory can be achieved either with military force or diplomatic negotiations. Historically, we have used both. The problem with the current war is that our enemies are sworn to death to destroy us, so that rules out diplomatic negotiations. The same enemy, islamic jihadists, have sworn to wipe Israel off the map despite Israel's best efforts to appease them by returning land they had no legal or moral right to.

Answer 5

any war between ancient sects is doomed to be faught over and over untill one of them is killed completely off or moves away. In this scenario, it could be forever before one side wins, because the fighting never ends and they both lose generation after generation after generation meaninglessly.

On the other hand USA and Russia WON against facist Hitler in 1945. A country can win if it takes out a Monster that is generally agreed upon by all to be removed somehow.

Answer 6

Maybe you shouldn't measure a war by winning, but by reduction of loss. Imagine how many more lives would be lost if America didn't go to war in World War 2.

Answer 7

Look man i know war sucks, it does, lives are lost , especially in seemly useless wars, But some wars are unavoidable and even nessecary at times. some can be talked out others can't. I know you know someone that you can't tell nothing cause they think they know it all, it's the same with war sometimes, and they must be showed.Sombody has to win! For example, Do you think satan and god talk to get through there battles, i don't think so. but who knows.

Answer 8

in my personal experience, there are a lot more than 2 losers.

fours ago i was a young dumb soldier ready to kick but and go and fight.

i am not so young anymore, (although probably still dumb) and now all i do is wonder why anyone would ever want to hurt another human being.

my enlistmant is up in a few months and if i am not stop-loss-ed, i hope to spend the rest of my life in peace and i'll never again fire a weapon. not even hunting.

Answer 9

I agree...there no winners in a war....wars are senseless acts by those that are radically inclined to do nothing but gain the power that they think they so deserve. So few are the ones that always start this kind of upheavals and sadly to say, Too many innocent people end up getting hurt or annihilated....

Answer 10

I say force the politicians to go and fight their own battles and let the rest of the world live in peace :)