The Definition of Victory

Yesterday, Senate majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said, "this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence yesterday.^[1] (emphasis added)

This raises a question in my mind. What, in Senator Reid's view, would constitute a victory?

If "extreme violence yesterday" is objective evidence that the "surge is not accomplishing anything" and thus the "war is lost," then Reid must believe that the criterion for victory is not to have "extreme violence."

This seems rather naive to me. Does Reid just expect the enemy to roll over and do nothing? The surge, by definition, increases troop strength to engage the enemy ... to root them out. More engagement means more violence. And the terrorists, who were targeting (i.e. bringing violence upon) civilians when we were not surging would naturally (and not unexpectedly) increase their level of violence.

Reid's comment is nonsensical. Had someone asked him to define his criterion for victory this would have been obvious. This should be a question for all our political leaders regardless of the political party: Define what victory means in Iraq, in Afganistan, in the war against radical Islam.

Every generation faces a great evil. Our generation is no different. If we do not define what victory looks like then there will be no rallying around an objective and no hope for victory.

Then, history will record Senator Reid as a prophet.

Not because the war was lost on the battlefield but because it was lost in our hearts.

[1] Anne Flaherty, "Reid says War is Lost", AP, published by The Columbian (Vancouver, WA), 4/20/07, A8.