Can a theater commander ever say that his war is not "winnable"?

[kotkinjs1]

Unfortunately, I think not. By the time the mission order comes down to the commander, be it theater, sub-component (as in the case of US Forces-Afghanistan), or tactical, it is *assumed* that the higher level strategy has been worked out and solidified. I would take that to mean that the civilian government and JCS have already developed overarching Ends, Ways, and Means, calulated the various risks, and found the strategy to be feasible, acceptible, and suitable. In other words, they do think it is 'winnable,' or else they would have not went forward. If a commander refused, he'd be removed and rightfully so (this, of course, gets into larger questions of integrity and the civil-military relationship: i.e. should GEN Shinseki have fallen on his sword when he initially briefed SECDEF and POTUS on the need for more troops in Iraq; the failure of the CJCS during Viet Nam, etc).

Realistically though and in the current situaition, the question is almost moot because no one can seem to define what 'winnable' is.....even Special Representative Holbrook (paraphrasing, 'we'll know it [success] when we see it').