it will probably be a "few years" before Afghanistan will be secure enough for the Marines to leave.
“Secure?" For who? When an area is deemed “secure” in military lingo, it generally means that all hostiles have either been killed, captured, or run off. In other words, everyone who does not obey the orders and kiss the boots of the US government is dead in the ground. Secure can also mean “safe from attack.” But there is no place that is safe from attack from someone. I’m sure the occupants of the Pentagon were confident that their building was “secure” on 9/11.
When the plundered public questions the length of any military occupation, the word “security” is almost always invoked, despite being a very ambiguous term. Most questioners immediately accept this response without even thinking about, let alone questioning, its exact meaning.
Back in 2004, Lew Rockwell wrote:
“Submission and compliance: that is what is meant by the term security in the state's lexicon.
Who is this security trying to secure? We are told it is for our own benefit. It is government that makes us secure from terrible threats. And yet, if we look closely, we can see that the main beneficiary of security is the state itself.