Are they an analogy or not

Yeah, they're analogies since they resort to metaphors to explain victory.

No, sorry, these statements are not ‘analogies’ to anything. They are simply alternative plausible interpretations of alleged tangential benefits to either achieving, coming close to, or attempting to achieve (but failing to achieve) “Victory”. The most common definitions of ‘Victory’ assert “the success or act of defeating an opponent or enemy.” While this definition is clear cut, the ramifications of failing to achieve this threshold in whole or in part may still yield positive benefits, which are less clear, thus the alternative assertions, which may, or may not be either wholly correct or mutually exclusive. However, they are not analogous to anything contained herein.

They are analogies; they're just not very good ones. Analogies are almost always subjective, so to claim it is logically fallacious is beside the point. If the analogy isn't clear, it may help to ask the speaker to explain how the items he discusses are analogous. Then we can start discussing fallacious arguments.

My son likes to come up with analogies for nearly everything. Half of the time, my wife and I can't figure out what he means.