From a news article punished 20th November 2013, about the recent security pact agreed between the U.S. and Afghan regimes:
‘The draft text published by the Afghans explicitly states that “US military operations to defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates may be appropriate in the common fight against terrorism,” leaving the door open both to US raids, probably by special operations forces, after 2014 . . .
. . . Although the accord paves the way for a residual US force in Afghanistan on an open-ended stay, it represents a political victory for the Obama administration, which had vowed to a domestic US audience it would bring the war to a conclusion’.
They have now ‘negotiated’ an agreement (in the same way that a kidnapper ‘negotiates’ with a hostage, perhaps) in which 10’000+ U.S. troops will remain in the country indefinitely, with free rein to conduct ‘anti-terror’ – i.e. combat – operations (the U.S., of course, will get to decide who is and isn’t a ‘terrorist’).
The Guardian then present this arrangement, in the very same sentence, as a ‘political victory’ for the Obama administration, in that it has fulfilled a promise to bring ‘the war to a conclusion’ – a claim which is diametrically opposed to the truth borne out by the basic facts they had reported only seconds earlier.
Interesting stuff, for collectors of Newspeak.