So, what will success, what will victory look like in the Afghan war?

[MadHound]

In traditional views of war, there is an objective, a benchmark to measure whether a country is successful and victorious in a war.

However since WWII, the wars that the US has been involved in have all been victoryless wars. They have been, for the most part, simply massive, meaningless killing, mostly of innocent civilians.

We are entering the tenth year of our war in Afghanistan, and I believe that it is relevant to ask this question: What is our benchmark for success, for victory in Afghanistan? Do we even have one? The original, stated objectives of this war have been met, namely the death of bin Laden and obliteration of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden is, by many reputable accounts, now dead, dead and buried for years now. There are less than one hundred members of Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan.

So if these original objectives have been met, why are we still in Afghanistan? Have new objectives, new definitions of success and victory been handed down, and if so, what are they. Or is this simply another victoryless war that we're fighting to enrich the military industrial complex?

[leftstreet]

1. Did they ever greet us with sweets and flowers? Or was that Iraq

K&R

Good questions!

[MadHound]

2. No, this is Afghanistan after all,

They greeted us with opium and poppies of course.

Sadly, it seems that nobody, especially nobody in this administration, wants to answer these questions. They just want to keep dragging the war on and on, killing innocents and making money for the MIC.

[Bobbieo]

3. We're there for those minerals and all of that good stuff which equals MONEY!

[soryang]

4. The war is the basis for a system of alliances, arms deals, and

...bases deep in Asia which have as their objective, not only defense contractor profits, but to surround and limit Russian and Chinese power and influence. The is in a phrase "world domination."

It is an insane plan and can't possibly succeed because the corporate gangsters who support it don't pay for it, they just take, take, take...Who's minding the Treasury? No one. Soon, they'll be coming for our pigs and chickens to pay for it.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. Last year:

http://www.examiner.com/world-news-in-national/obama-to-add-30-000-u-s-troops-end-afghanistan-war-3-years

President Barack Obama will add 30,000 U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan, but also plans to withdrawal from the country within three years, senior White House officials stated on Tuesday.
...
The troop surge will be accelerated, with some troops beginning to arrive in Afghanistan by Christmas. Also, the surge will not be open-ended. There will be an “end-game” strategy in place to insure that the mission does not become one of nation-building. The primary mission will be to train Afghan forces for their takeover on control, while at the same time protecting against any disruptions by the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

On ABC's "Good Morning America,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated, “We want to — as quickly as possible — transition the security of the Afghan people over to those national security forces in Afghanistan.” He continued, “This can't be nation-building. It can't be an open-ended forever commitment.”

[MadHound]

7. And yet already that timeline has been extended,

Administration officials are now talking about 2017.

But none of this defines what victory will look like. Having Afghan security forces take over? Hell, that can be done within months, not years. That's not really victory though. So what is victory in this case?

[L0oniX]

6. The price of hash will go down.

[SoCalDem]

8. There will be no "win"

It's impossible, because what WE consider a win, is not what THEY will consider a win.

We will only stay and pour money into the country and bring home wounded & dead..and then one day we will stop doing it..and life will return to what it always was there.

tribal
uneducated masses
corrupt government
opium selling