While I was writing this article, I had a hard time thinking of what category I was going to put it in.... I mean, it is political in a way, and it is also going to be historical or gaming related... but in the end, I decided that this was a bit more philosophical in nature. However, I think Misc. might serve this best .. but I am undecided about that at the moment, so the category might change.

EDIT: Welcome to the history category!

I began asking myself when a draw really is a draw and not victory, based on my recent experiences playing Steel Panthers: World at War and SP: Main Battle Tank. You see, I had just got through fighting a couple of "Draws".... one theoretical battle between Belgium and the Netherlands in 1947, and another a December 1975 battle in West Germany between W. German and French forces and the mighty tanks of the East German army. Now, in all fairness, I technically lost these two battles... I scored less points, I took generally heavier losses, and at the end of these battles, I held less victory points/territory.... but at the same time, I also sort of won them as well. I had inferior forces, both in numbers and quality of arms and troops, and yet, I was still able to hurt the enemy in both battles enough that they stalled in their attack/counterattack.... and I was still able to maintain some measure on territorial integrity on at least one part of the front line and protect an objective and route of escape. By those terms, I performed admirably under tough circumstances.

Historically, there are many examples of the "winning" draw or loss... like the Tet Offensive... technically, it was a tactical loss for the Vietcong, with all 150+ different targets eventually pushing back the incursion. However politically, it became a victory for them, as the television cameras reported the carnage and helped to further galvanize more of the American public against the war, and considering it was 1968, an election year, that political victory was much more palpable. The WW I Battle of Jutland is also considered a draw with both the Germans and British claiming victory, although despite the Royal Navy's substantial losses in the battle, the Kaiserliche Marine never ventured out of their harbors for the rest of the war. 

I also vaguely remember that after the first Presidential debate, a lot of people were calling it a draw, which meant that John Kerry did a lot better than was expected. So it is technically it could have been called a victory for him (though many other people also have called it that without the qualifier). Of course, there aren't really tie-breakers in the American electoral system, which is a shame really. 

I think the basic message I am trying to convey is, if you play or fight against an opponent that outmatches you in almost every way(or supposedly so), and you somehow manage to either fight to a stalemate or generally cause your enemy to achieve at best a Pyrrhic victory, then couldn't that be considered "good enough"? As a novice chess player, if you put a grandmaster on the ropes for a while, wouldn't that be far more than could ever be expected of you, and as such, wouldn't that be not a demoralizing loss, rather an ego-boost to say the least. Or on the battlefield... if a force armed with early 20th century weaponry was able to delay an advancing technologically superior army for days or weeks, even if they eventually lose the battle, could that not be declared a victory for the eventually defeated forces? Or what if a third-party was to achieve 10% of the popular vote in the upcoming elections? Technically, they would have lost the election, but as a third-party, wouldn't that be a victory too? Wouldn't 10% have meaning?