Or is it - apropos previous post - is it that the generals are thinking about Vietnam? In the sense, after Abrams took over and COIN employed by '72 you had something that looked like victory in Vietnam - and then, if you believe the history of some, the US congress withdrew support for a functioning and largely pacified south and the north, with the support of China, broke the peace accords and invaded thus leading to the 'defeat' we now associate with Vietnam.
If they do have that in mind, and it's hard to imagine they don't, then I guess my speculation about them angling for a 'token' victory is misguided - they would realize that a loss is a loss no matter how clever you are in trying to reframe it.
