Basically because we don't need to. We are not faced at present with a megalomaniacal fascist expansionist dictator. Why? Because we already ousted him in a manner of about 3 weeks as I recall. See, we wrapped up the "World War 2" type job in weeks, and you're here 3 years later asking why it's "taking so long".
Now it is a different thing we are doing (and it's not even really a "war" per se): Iraq is now our protectorate, and we are trying to help bring a reasonably sane, consensual government to a people that has never seen one. That is just not the sort of thing we had to do when it came to Germany.
I can't believe you actually need it explained to you that World War 2 and Iraq are different though.
Perhaps if this war required more sacrifice on the home front, above and beyond a little TSA inconvenience at the airport, the political will would exist to achieve victory more quickly.
Most people who say this really, secretly, mean "perhaps if it required more sacrifice we'd give up sooner". I hope that's not what you mean.
My basic answer to you is that there is no overwhelming need to tighten our belts and make huge "sacrifices" for the sake of achieving victory more quickly (even if that's what would happen, which I don't believe). Is there? I don't understand the impatience. I really don't understand it. Can you explain it?
No problem, just asking some difficult questions. Is that a problem?
It's not the questions I have a problem with, it's the inexplicable and needless impatience which they betray.