It seems these politicians are never asked the big question:

What does it "really" mean to be "successful" in Afghanistan or for that manner, Iraq? Anybody know the truth?

Let me throw this one out:

Take care of the people at home first, before you spend money of war.

Afghanistan is not so much a country than it is a loose collection of mainly rural tribes. The Soviets put 100K troops into Afghanistan for nearly 10 years, all in support of a socialist "central government" that was not any more widely accepted as the current puppet Karzai government.

The USA's (Dubya's) stated goal when invading Afghanistan was to destroy al-Queda, capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and punish the Taliban for failing to turn OBL over to us. Today al-Queda exist largely only in neighboring Pakistan, in the Tribal Frontier. Their base camps and infrastructure in Afghanistan are destroyed. Reliable estimates are that there are fewer than 100 al-Queda in the entire region. Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan, and then was declared, by Dubya and Cheney that "OBL no longer mattered" and "OBL was of no consequence". The Taliban, which ten years ago was the closest thing Afghanistan had to a central government, has been deposed and routed, and most certainly punished. Mission accomplished?

So, why are we still there? With the "surge" of USA and NATO ally troops to be vested at 100K, same as the Soviets, in order to deal with less than 100 al-Queda militants, at a cost of 100 Million USD$ per year? 1000 troopers and 1 Million USD$ per al-Queda operative per year? Really? Does al-Queda really represent that great a threat in the region, considering that even Arab Muslims are considered "undesirable foreigners" there?

Or, are we there to prop up a corrupt puppet government in Kabul, recognized as the government really only of Kabul, to the cost of 100 Billion USD$ per year, and thus far nearly 1,500 US soldiers perished? Are we there for nation-building, in a nation that has never really ever been a nation? Are we there to destroy the Taliban, whose greatest recruiting tools are (1) the presence of infidel invaders and occupiers, and (2) retribution for the "collateral damage" deaths of countless civilians? Even the corrupt Karzai government has begun making moves toward reconciliation with the Taliban.

The USA military has trained to fight and defeat an opposing organized military force by always carrying the offensive forward against a clearly defined enemy. Taking, holding, and stabilizing territory is archaic, so World War I-like. And yet, that is the only way to defeat an enemy not only engaged in guerilla warfare, but which also has the support of the local population. Using a mobile superior force against an even more mobile smaller force is like squeezing an inflated balloon - where you squeeze gets smaller only as long as that superior force is applied. We tried such an approach in asymmetric warfare 30 years ago in Vietnam. That effort, using similar tactics, failed there in spite of having a total in-theater force of 550K troops. Are we prepared to double or triple that number of troops in Afghanistan (1 Million plus) in order to take, hold, and stabilize territory there? Would not such an increase in allied troop strength in Afghanistan have exactly the same effect upon the various tribal groups that the Soviet occupation did - swell the ranks of the insurgents fighting foreign invaders?

When you come to the realization that all you are doing is digging a deeper hole (counter-productive), isn't it time to stop digging deeper and start looking for alternative (political) solutions? Another Nobel Prize winner, not Barrack Obama but Albert Einstein, defined "insanity is following the same process, time after time, and expecting a different result". Our continued presence, let alone escalation of the war, in Afghanistan is not insane, how?