What Does it Mean to "Win"?

This week marked a rather grim statistic in Iraq with the 4,000th death since the conflict (or war... or occupation... whatever you want to call it) began in Iraq. Now whether you support the war or you don't; whether you support our troops or you don't, it's hard not to think of this and come to halt in your thinking. 4,000 people are dead. That's the equivalent of the entering freshman classes at Universities around the country. That's the population of small towns and villages that dot our nation. I'm not here to argue whether their sacrifices were in vain or for the greater good or for the safety and sanctity of our way of life. I'm merely asking what it will take in order for leaders to declare 'victory'.

Maybe part of the problem is that it depends on what we choose to see as 'winning'. As we grow up we are heavily influenced by the people and things around us. I've blogged on this point before and I'm sure I'll blog on it again. I see it quite often. Kids pushed to see victory in pure black and white terms. We're all fast becoming products of a mindset where there's nothing less than total victory expected. If you don't finish first then don't bother finishing. I think it's telling that during the Olympics, there is so much focus given to which country has won how many medals and in what fields. Gold medal winners especially are heralded as 'true' victors while everyone else is seen as a marginal competitor at best. Why? Why shouldn't the person who finished last be heralded as well? Take for example the marathon at the Olympics. To run for the full course and complete the race, I consider every one of those runners a winner. I know I don't have the strength and conditioning to complete that race but there are those who do.

At one Olympics I remember that the winner of the marathon finished so far ahead of the last place competitor that he was literally able to go get freshened up before greeting the last place finisher, but he did greet him. He jogged the final lengths with him; not to show off or proclaim publicly his superb conditioning thus making him a 'winner' but to show the comradeship with someone who has also suffered through this grueling event to reach this point and finish the race. Even if he came in last place it was still worthy of praise. He raced for his country and completed something that not everyone out there could even consider finishing half of. If we were all that great then perhaps we'd all be in the Olympics rather than sitting quietly on our couches cheering as we reach for another sip from our sodas. Is the guy finishing first the winner or the one who gave up everything for a chance to represent his country in front of the world the winner. I leave it to you to decide and when you have your answer, you'll probably know what type of person you are.

There are rarely cases these days where there is a clear-cut winner and a clear-cut loser. Sports is the one place that you can always look to find such 'simple equations'. There is only one outcome expected or wanted. How satisfied would people have been if the Super Bowl ended in a tie this year rather than the underdog Giants coming from behind to defeat the theretofore undefeated Patriots? Unfortunately not every instance in life is as clear as what happens on the playing fields of sports. And even more unfortunate is the fact that there are such differences in what people consider 'victory' to be that it is often to the detriment to people and places around them. Some parents will laud their children for at least making an honest effort and finishing something they started. Others will scorn their child for not finishing first. Competition is good and necessary but unless we know what the price of victory is, we'll never fully appreciate it. And until everyone can agree on what 'victory' means, whatever is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue.