What is victory in AfPak? Why didn't Obama define THAT 1st?

Early in WW2 FDR delineated what victory was.
Unconditional surrender.

We have failed to do this since. The result is:

1. Korea - a war which is in a truce state since neither side would give in and no result on the battlefield which dictated the political solution was effected.
2. Vietnam - a war lost thru lack of purpose, and lack of support, and no definition of victory
   
3. Desert Storm (90-91) -a war which WAS in a truce state since the result on the battlefield was not enforced politically which caused, ultimately, a repeat engagement
4. The war on US as infidels ... unrecognized and scattered in effort as criminal prosecutions and fitful individual responses from WTC 93, Embassies, the Cole ...culminating in Pearl Harbor II and
5. The invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion undertaken to destroy the hosts of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda but which was prosecuted ULTIMATELY to avoid American casualties (Gary Bernsten, Jawbreaker) at the penultimate moment (Tora Bora) .. see Sherman's First Law
6. The invasion of Iraq (see 3 above) in which victory SEEMS to be a democracy functioning in some pro-American (or lack of ANTI AMERICAN) way and no American casualties. We are on the way to that.

Yet in Afghanistan, because we did not GET the people we needed to in 2001 when they were flat on their back, we now find ourselves tempted to nation building to call the result SOME KIND OF VICTORY.

FORGET IT. This is a totally tribal 'nation' in which they all despise each other from the old neighborhood. Thus all alliances will find more opposition than cooperation, and the result MUST BE the result on the battlefield and the more decisive the more peaceful later. That why the USSR got it's ass kicked. Prior to this the weapons simply did not exist which would ALLOW a true battlefield victory.

Now it's about the will to be viewed as people who WILL DO what it takes to defeat all enemies on that field of battle ..and I'm talking the nation-state of Afghanistan and their Pushtun buddies across the border in the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, the Northwest territories of Pakistan.

That means if we decide to use men on the ground .. to forget 'classic' counterinsurgency and simply go to being sure the Afghans themselves feel it is to benefit of their PHYSICAL SAFETY if they help us and kill the bad guys. Any tribe, group, or family, elders, ulema or gathering WE will favor will, by that fact alone become enemies to all other tribes, groups, or family, elders, ulema or gatherings by the nature of Afghan history. That how it was throughout history, and from 1989 until the day the Taliban crushed all others in the all against all free for all which ensued.

If we are not willing to achieve these ends with men on the ground then we have to do it by drone, which will probably mean MORE innocent casualties while we go about it. But that's' the price for them and for us. IF WE HAVE DETERMINED THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE.

There is not going to be Jefferson, or a nice guy American out here. There is no exit ramp. We either get the guys who did what they did or we do not.

They are not going to surrender. They MAY, have others turn them in, but they are not giving up. That means the only solution is lethal force.

Afghanistan is not Massachusetts, or Oklahoma, or even Iraq (where Saddam BRUTALLY ENFORCED FOR BETTER THAN A GENERATION - WOMEN'S EDUCATION ..and then raped them), or Oman. It's not going to be anything but the place where they will STILL want to dress their women in bags and beat them, and abuse their daughters and make sure they barely know what's outside the mud villa walls. They are STILL going to want to enforce beard length.

Victory is when they are petrified of America's terrible vengeance and determination to win at all costs.

Perhaps I am cruel. But then ...