[duxup]

That really didn’t answer my question. It reads like trying to find misc metrics to prove success.

And WMDs, you think those were real?

Kinda fits the government’s shifting explanations for the war anyway, but that’s incoherence not success.

[_DeadFred_]

WMDs have nothing to do with military success.

You are talking about political success, and we won't know how that goes until the final outcome, but if we are successful we may never know (if we stopped a nuclear program that would have happened, how do we know we did?).

Currently we can look at military success, and it's pretty easy to see militarily we are meeting our goals.

[duxup]

Yeah like I said it reads like trying to make up a measurement to fit a story, these conflicts aren’t even comparable for obvious reasons.

[_DeadFred_]

It reads like military analysis of a military action. Strategic and tactical/military success are not the same thing, but both are worthwhile discussions to understand events. You seem to want to comingle the two but it'd probably be more productive for you to discuss your proffered topic of strategic success in one of the many threads here related to that.