What Does "Winning" Mean?

Last year, one of the things Candidate Obama campaigned on was the need to "win the war in Afghanistan". So: More Troops, New Commander, More Money. Also, somebody assigned to create some "Metrics" with which to measure "Progress". Come up with something like the fabled (and fabulous) "Body Counts" of Vietnam War era fame. Still, one really must decide first what it means to "Win" before one can measure "Progress", mustn't one?
A common definition of winning, or success, when talking about Iraq has been the phrase "...stable democratic government that is friendly to the USA".
Well. That's not going to happen. Democracy isn't going to exist in that part of the world today any more than it existed in fifteenth century Europe. Not to mention that Puppet Governments are never popular, not even with their Puppet Masters. As we see, the "Government Of Afghanistan" is much more a State Of Mind of old leftover Cold Warriors. So, sorry, Winning: Not In The Cards. We've already Lost The War. And yes, it's Obama's Fault. In the previous administration, the plan was to neither Win nor Lose the war. An Endless War; a Perpetual Profit Center for the Arms Suppliers. A Full Employment Plan for Soldiers OF Fortune (note: now constituting 57% of US forces in Afghanistan - New York Times, Sept. 1). A Rapid Promotion Plan for REMF's (Rear Echelon... I leave the rest to you to fill in). Yes; Keep It Simmering.
"... With contractors focused on preserving profits and filing paperwork with government auditors, he said, 'you grow the part of government that, probably, the taxpayers appreciate least.'
Congress appropriated at least $106 billion for Pentagon contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 through the first half of the 2008 fiscal year, the report says." (Ibid)
What's really eerie; for seven years, Nobody Complained! Now, with the new president actually considering the idea of an End To The War In Afghanistan, people are worried! I even read that some Pentagon REMF's are afraid that the new president doesn't have a Bushlike commitment to the war!
An odd sidebar: With the likes of Cold Warrior George Will advocationg an end to the war, causing one to wonder if the End Times are upon us, we see an interesting phenomenon. Perhaps the Party Of No can be manipulated by a sort of Automatic Whiplash process. Perhaps if the President now declares his opposition to something, the People United Against Everything The President Is For will advocate for it. Health Care Reform might end up being a Republican Issue, passed by 100% of Republican Congressmen, abetted by a small number of Blue Dog (read; 'Fraidy-Cat) Democrats.
President Obama can scream and yell and threaten to Veto any health care bill. Then (hiding his smirk), Reluctantly sign it. Handing out the symbolic pens to the Republican Sponsors!
Well, it's a nice scenario, isn't it? Goes along with the general fantasy world we appear to have slipped into in this century.