To answer that I think you have to decide who gets to decide if a war "went well". Should some politician, historian, or descendant be allowed to weigh up the death and destruction and come to a simple answer? I think not. If a war destroyed your life then you have a right to be upset about that. The death, abuse, fear and rape of yourself or a loved one is all the qualification you need to have an opinion.

Too often the people who decide have little skin in the game. They are the survivors. They are politicians who spent the war sitting in an office. Or someone watching it on Fox News on the sofa. They can talk about the big abstract objectives whilst ignoring the individual suffering. Or they focus on suffering that signals virtue like the experience of veterans.

For most people war is something you get caught up in. Like being put in a tumble dryer full of knives. It is not really about looking to history. Millions will die hopeless, pointless deaths. That is the history that matters.

The Congo Crisis ended very poorly for Lumumba, very well for Mobutu, probably poorly for most Congolese, and probably well for Mobutu's patrons.

====

Goldstein's thesis is that Oceania has reached a static society, because no change can come from without, and no change shall come from within[1].

From http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm

> "... if the door is left open to voluntary conversion, so that anyone who wants to can come over to the winning side, the winning side will sooner or later convert almost everyone who is capable of making trouble. (In the language of Vilfredo Pareto, this would probably be termed "capture of the rising elite"; in the language of present-day Marxists, this would be described as "utilization of potential leadership cadres from historically superseded classes"; in the language of practical politics, it means "cut in the smart boys from the opposition, so that they can't set up a racket of their own.")"

followed by an asian postmortem. As the domino theory turns out not to have held water, the lessons Linebarger wished to offer have largely fallen on deaf ears:

> "Sir Henry Gurney, the High Commissioner of the Federation who was murdered in 1952, was a veteran of irregular warfare. He had faced the Zionist terrorists in Jerusalem and was a man without fear. His approach to the problem of confronting Communism was hopelessly sane. The Communists were offering young Chinese the intoxication of craziness, of a mad and heroic righteousness to justify the misspending of their lives. Sir Henry's answer was decency, goodness, security, prosperity, authority, liberty under law. He offered everything except glamor, terror, inspiration, and romance— Everything except the chance to join the British side.

> What kind of British side?

> A British side which, like the Communist side, would welcome the makers of the future, the builders of the next civilization, the arbiters of history.

> The Communists have presented a high bid against the U.S. and Britain as well as the other Western powers. We have not yet overbid them. The high bid is the opportunity to join, to belong, really to be equal, not just legally equal, and, above everything, to share, to struggle, and to work under conditions of heroism for a common goal."[2]

Note that the Inner Party has internalised these lessons well, operating as a colour-blind meritocracy despite Goldstein having been written several years (in a meta-fiction) earlier than Dr. Linebarger wrote (in non-fiction).

[1] Is Big Brother a surveillance philosopher-king? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572

[2] To what degree does Silicon Valley allow talent from all over the world to join, to belong, really to be equal, not just legally equal, and, above everything, to share, to struggle, and to work under conditions of heroism for a common goal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Covert_United_States_...

Indonesia has turned out the best of the bunch?