Theory of Victory

J.Boone Bartholomees advances his Theory of Victory (Parameters, Summer 2008, pp. 25-36) by distinguishing between winning and victory. He is of the opinion that one can win without achieving viotory.

He equates victory with the collapse of your opponent's will to continue the struggle. If one achieves one's objectives without breaking your opponent's will, then one has won without victory.

On p.26, Bartholomees writes that:

Victory in war is at the most basic level an assessment, not a fact or condition. It is someone’s opinion or an amalgamation of opinions. Victory in war may or may not have anything to do with objective criteria such as casualties or territory taken or lost. In winning a war, those things matter—at least at some level and always in terms of their effect on perception—but what matters most is the ultimate perception of the situation, not the facts. Different people, depending on their perspective, can legitimately differ in their assessment. The assessment aspect complicates the issue of winning exponentially since it introduces the uncontrolled variables of whose assessment takes precedence, for how much, and based on what criteria.

Emphasis Mine

Here we have the subjective determining the objective. Perception is important.

In discussing the three (3) levels of perspective (tactical, operational, and strategic), Bartholomees contends that the first two (2) have quantifiable conditions for success (p.27). He then asks:

Which level is most important? It is tempting to respond that all are equally important, but that would be incorrect. What counts in the end is the strategic outcome. The story comes to mind of Colonel Harry Summers talking to a North Vietnamese officer after the Vietnam War. Summers commented that the United States had won all the battles, and the North Vietnamese replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” Tactical and operational successes may set the stage for strategic victory, but they are not sufficient in themselves.

Emphasis Mine

No matter how many strikes are broken, demonstrations suppressed, activists arrested, publications suppressed, victory by the state is never assured. The state can win through maintaining itself while allowing a level of dissidence to be accommodated.

On p.28, Bartholomees puts forward two (2) components of success in war: achievement and decisiveness.

Decisiveness also reflects a range of potential outcomes. The decisiveness scale (Figure 2) shows potential outcomes varying from completely resolving the political issues at stake through various degrees of partial resolution to no effect (or status quo), worsened or deteriorated political conditions, to the final potential outcome that the war does not solve the problems for which it was fought, but actually exacerbates them. Decisiveness assesses the effect on the political issues.

Achievement considers how well one executes his strategy—in a sense, how well he did on the battlefield or campaign and in the immediate political realm. Achievement (Figure 3) can range from accomplishing nothing through increasing degrees of success until one is completely successful.

Emphasis Mine. Figures are in original, not reporoduced here.

What is ambiguous here is the definition of politics. I would propose that conflict aims to change the social relations within a society.

For example, if a worker wants to exchange each hour of labour for $20 instead of $15, then the worker enters into conflict with the employer who wants to maintain the current social relation between himself and the worker of exchanging $15 for every hour of labour provided by the worker.

Here there may be a political context, but the conflict involves identifable people not abstractions.

On p.36, Bartholomees concludes with:

The fact that war is about winning does not mean it is about victory. One can win a war, especially a limited war, without achieving victory; here the distinction in words becomes significant. Military force can legitimately be used to obtain goals short of total victory or for immediate political advantage with no intent of resolving the underlying issues. The point is that war is about politics, and consequently victory in the end is a political matter.

Emphasis Mine.

With the case of the class war, this ends with either the complete collapse of the Capitalist system into barbarism, or by its metamorphosis into Socialism. Either way, there will be a decisive outcome.