On a Theory of Victory

I’ve just read this article by J Boone Bartholomees in Parameters, the US Army War College Quarterly on the Theory of Victory. It’s a short article that explores some questions about how we define Victory and therefore how we might achieve a victory.

He first looks at the dimensions in which Victory might be achieved; tactical, operational and strategic and goes on to suggest that Victory in the strategic sphere is essentially political. In Vietnam, the US won all the battles but lost the war. Victory and Defeat are opposites but not necessarily binary. It is possible for one side to win and for the other side not to be defeated. Even for both sides to achieve Victory. A lot depends on how you define Victory for yourself.

He suggests some scales developed by Colin S Gray in his paper for Parameters in 2002.

Victory is a measure of Success on a scale that runs

Defeat  Loss       Not Win               Tie          Not Lose              Win        Victory

This in turn is a composite of two other measures Decisiveness and Achievement

Decisiveness looks at how fully the underlying political issues have been settled by the conflict. Has the end of your conflict answered your political desires?

The scale runs thus.

Exacerbated       Significant Deterioration               Potential Deterioration Status Quo          Potential Solution            Partial Solution               Resolution

Achievement measures how well the strategy was executed.  Were the material aims of the campaign realised.

The scale runs

None     Negligible            Slight     Limited Measureable     Significant           Total     

Simplistically, a campaign that totally achieves its material aims and which through that affects a total resolution of the political questions is a Victory. However, it’s not as simple as that.

Bartholomees then looks at the characteristics of Victory.

It must have some temporal element.  Victory must create a persistent state of being, a new status quo.

Victory can be non-binary. It is possible for all protagonists in a conflict to have different aims and for more than one side or more than one actor to achieve their aims.

Cost is an important consideration. A Victory that costs too much is not a Victory. A political settlement that is significantly cheaper to achieve than the wholly desired outcome might be defined as Victory.

Who Decides Who Has Achieved Victory?

Victory being political is in the minds of the beholders. It is a matter of opinion, but whose opinion matters? Both sides opinion is important and in some respect the conflict will continue until both sides recognise that a new status quo has been reached. Symbols, here, can be important. Formal indicators of changes in status show can show that both sides accept and share the same interpretation of the result.  One might argue that the US Civil War wasn’t settled until well into the 20^th Century.

Clausewitz gets a mention with two models.  First a tripartite model of Lose. Total Victory comprises a greater loss by the enemy of material, of morale and, ultimately the giving up by the enemy of their intentions for the conflict.

In order to achieve Victory one must target the enemy’s resistance which is a function of their Means and Their Will. R = M*W. By driving R towards 0 Victory can be achieved.

Typically in military conflicts the main target is the enemy’s Means, either in a direct attempt to reduce it to zero and therefore to impose one side’s Will on the Other or to erode the enemy’s will by making the destruction of their Means painful and full of the promise of future pain and impotence. 

Two notes I wrote down whilst reading this article

One must not only be Victorious but be seen to be Victorious.

Destroying the Enemy’s Means but not their  Will still leaves a hostile Enemy with Political Intention.

In order to achieve Victory one must understand what your own political objectives are and who one might use the conflict to achieve them. You also need to understand what the enemy wants. What does Victory look like for both sides. That’s the objective, you then pick the means most suitable.

I’m trying to fit this theoretical discussion into my thinking about strategy at both work and my Reform campaigning.  More to come on this I think.