According to Benn what Olmert wants to present as a victory is the war itself. everybody knows, that war ITSELF is a desirable situation only for strategists, the weapon industry and others whose financial or cultural interests allow them to overlook general humanitarian, economical, ecological etc. problems related with wars. For "normal" people, it's the perspective that might make a war attractive. Yet, I was surprised that today's Haaretz editorial "Keep fighting until the war ends" took a clear position for continuing that war. The argumentation is a different one, though, unlike Olmert's who seems to play with a popular need to "win", very typical to western societies in which competion plays a big role, I guess. But what Haaretz and Olmert ask for, i.e. to continue, is essentially the same thing and maybe that's difficult to digest for Benn. Diplomatic efforts will go on, humanitarian protests, strategic choices. All that will decide about the degree of suffering.
Australian Islamic State recruiter killed in U.S. airstrike in Iraq (Reuters)
from the article: ANALYSIS: Giving the war an image of victory, not a draw