December 1st, 2009
08:09 PM ET

Your View: Define success in Afghanistan

President Obama announced his U.S. troop strategy for Afghanistan in a speech at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York. In the speech, Obama explained why the United States is in Afghanistan, its interests there and his decision-making process, in addition to his strategy for a "successful conclusion."

All day, CNN has asked its readers and viewers, how would you define success in Afghanistan?

Reader Paul Marshall writes:  "Success in Afghanistan, for the previous administration meant staying as long as possible and giving their cronies no bid contracts and robing the treasury. For Obama success would be getting the hell out." Meanwhile reader Phyllis Sanders says, "Please give our President the support he needs, I know that I will."

What do you think? How do you think the government should define success? How would you define success in Afghanistan?

Or pick up your video camera and share your views for iReport

Post by:
Filed under: Decision: Afghanistan • Your View
soundoff (One Response)
  1. ken

    Afghanistan is not winnable. We went there to get BinLaden and he isnt even in the country anymore. He is in Pakistan. We shouldn't even be there. Russia couldn't do it and we won't do anything either. We should pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and bring them home. Our troops are dying for what? Trying to radicalize the irradadical extremists? Get BinLaden or get out. Let the afghans fight their own battles.

    December 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |