Smells like Victory
This week, we are going to hear that victory smells an awful lot like dog poo.
More than four years into a conflict initially thought to be a cakewalk, the war has become a battle of statistics, graphs and conflicting assessments of progress in a country of more than 27 million people.
Four and one-half years into the Iraq war, and we still have no idea what Victory will smell like. It used to be that we would stand down when the Iraqis stood up, but even that vague, meaningless definition has been disgarded as too optimistic.
After all of this time, we should not say that 'victory' can be measured by arcane statistical analysis. The trusim is, there are 3 kids of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. This is the Enronisation of Victory: pie charts and impressive graphs, drawn up by accountants who cleverly hide the truth.
Meantime, in Afghanistan/Pakistan, what should be the real Central Front in the War Against Terror [sic], NATO, which is fighting against the enemy who attacked the US so the US can be tied down in Iraq, is begging for more troops. Now, I'm no military genius, but does 'Victory' require still more troops, or is victory still an elusive goal in our 1st war?
Why, in the 2 wars we are currently fighting, does Victory so closely resemble defeat? Days ago, bin Laden once again rubbed our noses in victory. Granted, the American Revolution looked like defeat for many years, but here we are the foreign troops fighting on their home soil, and I doubt the French are going to show up at any minute to save our a$$es this time.
We are almost at the 6 year anniversary of the beginning of the 1st of our current wars; am I alone in wishing that, in at least one of them, victory might smell like those flowers our troops never got to smell in Baghdad?