I can see what you are getting at here, but you might want to think through your concepts and terminology.Originally Posted by KingsofWar
The only meaningful "military victory" is a political one, since war is an instrument of policy. That being said, you can separate out an assessment of "military performance" in an operational sense from the political-strategic outcomes of the war.
I realize that Wilf doesn''t much like the notion of a changing scorecard, but I think it does reflect the perceptions of the parties. In 2006, Hizbullah and broader regional audience would have regarded it as a Hizbullah win, while many Israelis would have regarded it as a losing draw.
Today, the Hizbullah/regional assessment hasn't much changed, but the Israeli assessment (after 4 years of deterrence) has.
The Middle East, by the way, is full of wars with unclear winners. Who won in 1973, Israel or Egypt? The IDF certainly won on the battlefield, surrounding the Egyptian Third Army. However, Sadat (unlike Assad) didn't launch the war to defeat Israel, but to break the diplomatic logjam--which it did, culminating in the 1979 peace treat and full recovery of occupied Egyptian territory. This is the reason why the war is still the subject of annual commemoration in Egypt.
Who won in 1982? The IDF certainly devastated the PLO, and forced it from Lebanon--but at the cost of creating a far more dangerous opponent, Hizbullah. Moreover, there is ample evidence that Sharon had a broader ambition to marginalize the PLO... yet, the war forced the PLO to become even more pragmatic, thereby enhancing its effective pursuit of the two-state solution that Sharon opposed. I would regard this as positive for Israel too, but I'm doubtful that the Israeli (Likud) leadership of the day would have regarded it as such.
In short, wars are messy things, with all sorts of complicated and unanticipated second- and third- order effects.
Policymakers, take note!
Bookmarks