Thoughts on Outmoded Concepts

I've been reflecting on the discussion going on at Two Babes and a Brain regarding What Victory Looks Like. It occurs to me that part of the problem may be that we're using an early 20th century vocabulary to discuss a 21st century conflict. Chris is asking the question. Lisa is offering examples of our numerous good deeds and accomplishments in the course of our occupation as though those were victories of a sort.
It occurs to me that, since the end of WW II, we've gotten away from the concept of "victory." Now it's more on the order of "That's close enough. We're outta here." In Korea, in VietNam, and now in OEF/OIF, victory has simply not been an achievable outcome.
Bear in mind that when I said "we" above I referred to the Executive Branch of the government and not to the military.
"War" used to mean a fight to win... or lose. When people with no concept of the meaning of war start to misuse the word, then we get into trouble. Declaring a war on poverty... declaring a war on drugs... these are meaningless declarations that desensitize people to the concept of a war.
A Global War on Terror... as if it was really possible to suit up and rehabilitate or kill every person on earth who hated us enough to kill us... and then they send the troops off in the wrong direction. Karl Rove, you son of a bitch, we knew within hours who was responsible for 9/11, and instead of taking them out you and your people took advantage.
People... people I respect... tell me that there really aren't many similarities between VietNam and OIF. Maybe not... but we abandoned Hamburger Hill... and we're still taking casualties out of Fallujah after how many months. You tell me... are we fighting to win? No, nor should we be. We shouldn't have been there at all. At some point we're looking at: "That's close enough. We're outta here."