Their government was chased from power, and their fighters were dispersed.
Defeated means that they are broken and are amenable to our will.
That is not true in Afgahnistan, and it is not true in Iraq.
Actually a government being forced from power by opposing military force is an excellent example of being defeated. And that fact that both the current governments of Afphanistan and Iraq are working with us and supporting our efforts would indicate that they are pretty amenable to our will.
There are degrees of victory and defeat. It is ok to say that the enemy had been defeated on the battlefield without implying that the war is over. As this clearly is the case. I think that we need to be very care not to come up with an all or nothing standard for victory (not accusing you of that).
Oh, but I am guilty, whether you accuse me or not.
War is a fascinating study. It has laws that it follows, almost like astrophysics. There are reasons man likes it so much, principally because it renders decisions that mere politicians are incapable of.
Victory in war is, by definition, all or nothing. The victors get to dictate terms to the losers, not because the losers now like the victors, or because the victors now can get a favorable UN resolution.
The victors power is such that they can seize the losers' treasure, rape their women, occupy their land, and treat them like slaves, to the extent that they desire.
That is victory.
And that is what is missing from our "victories" in the "war" on terrorism, and from Israel's war against the Arabs.
Now, you may say, such a victory is not necessary to accomplish our political ends. We shall see.
Allowing an undefeated enemy to exist at all, when they have articulated the desire, and demonstrated the capability, to kill our women and children, is not civilized-it is effete to the point of suicidality.
There is every reason to still fear our enemies-and that's not victory, by any definition.