Is a war "won" when a cease-fire is purchased for $30 million per month? Does that constitute victory in any sustained sense, such as the word "won" implies?

There may be something on the order of a "conditional win" but I'm not sure of any widespread acceptance of that term. It's possible. But this looks more like a "cease-fire by bribery".

Conservatives have long described "win" as the installation of a democracy and subsequent stability. (Which will then spread like wildfire to the other nations in the region.) Is it possible to have a democracy when the government needs ~300,000 enemy combatants (US military and mercenaries and their support) running around the countryside to prop it up? This is "win"? Some other definition of "win" must be out there.

Is a war won when the "democratic" government and occupying military power need to hide in a "Green Zone"? Walk around in armed groups wearing body armor? Or are those the signs of an ongoing conflict?

It's very obvious. If the Western military powers could have defeated those insurgents with the tactics and weapons they have available to them they would have. They didn't, couldn't, and have been fought to a standstill. The reality is that it's the Middle East and "they" are Middle Easterners. It's their lands and they want it more than we.

Arf