Does "winning" a war mean nothing or everything?

Many people have explored the idea that there are no winners in war. That there is such irony in calling oneself a winner of a war.

Let me think about it.

If there is a winner, then it is certainly (presumably) a loser. Or several losers. What happens when people lose a game? If a person is a "bad loser" they can become angry and bitter and often act in negative or aggressive ways. I have witnessed bad losers before. But only in games. Like board games or bowling or mini golf. I am not the best loser when it comes to Monopoly for sure.

And sports games. Crowds can get violent after an important game. During the World Cup--and I imagine other organized games as well--violence against women goes up significantly in the country of the losing team. Let me put that into more specific words so the meaning is not dulled: When a team loses a game in the World Cup, more women in that country are violently beaten that night. Because aggression goes up after experiencing a loss. Of a football game.

And in war? If bad losers of board games and football games can act in such ways, what about the losers of a war? And not without reason. Not to say the actions are justified, but I can see how the actions of a loser in war could grow infinitely. If losing means that I see the death of my countrypeople all around me, if losing means that I fall witness to torture and rape and humiliation, if losing means starving and having no place to call home--then yes. I can imagine being a bad loser a very likely thing indeed.

What happens to those feelings after such a loss? They do not fade away into nothingness. They do not slowly dim, resulting in ambiguity.

I can only imagine that they grow. Mutate. Fester into hatred that cannot be forgotten. I can't even imagine feeling this. I am beyond fortunate.

Even in my extremely basic understanding of physics, I understand the principle that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So when people lose in war, the hatred, hurt and desperation must transform into something. If that cannot be turned towards the supposed winner of the war, then it must turn on someone else.

So I ask: does violence ever solve anything?

And the winner? I never really understood how a country or group of people can win a war. To me, that is a cruel slap in the face to every person whose life was lost fighting in that war; a slap in the face to every person who has loved a person who has died fighting to "win".

Yes, I have heard the greater good argument. But it is easy to make that argument when you are still alive. When all of your loved ones are cozy in their beds.

So even when a war is won, the victory is soiled with much blood. And those who do make it home after the war is over? Have they won when they cannot forget all of the violent things they have seen, all of the violent things they have been told to do? If this is what winning is, then my concept of winning and losing needs much reflection...

some afterthoughts...

The lives that are lost to win a war need to be heavily examined. The powerful people that determine if a country goes to war will rarely risk their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. In the U.S., economics play such a huge part in who enlists in the military. It is often the only forseeable choice for young U.S. Americans who cannot afford or no desire to go to university. These people, the ones who will actually risk their lives (and sometimes lose them) to achieve "the greater good" have no power or decision making rights. It is ridiculous to me that the ones deciding where the blood may be spilled, risk none of their own blood. Again, it is easy to wage a violent war when you are safe in your luxurious office.

Also, a friend made a good comment, that warfare should only be waged as an absolute last resort, when everything else has been exhausted. We need to exhaust more options. Of course millions of people are much more complicated than a couple in a relationship, but certainly the priciple can be expanded to war; in a fight between two people in a relationship, there can be many outcomes.

If the people are invested in one another, they will either resolve their conflict so both partners can go on feeling fufilled,cared for and respected, OR they will leave the conflict in a way so one partner is satisfied with the outcome and the other is not. The other partner is then left feeling as though they do not matter as much in the relationship. I don't know about you, but I have experienced this and it is a terrible feeling. Those relationships either end or go on with one partner delusionaly satisfied and the other feeling unfufilled and disconnected.

War is way more complicated than a relationship between two people for sure, but the principles of relationships can apply to many levels.