[BubbaTheRocketScientist]

we don't know and no honest person can state how long this war will continue.

Good point, and not arguable.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq. They've even been considerate enough to label their franchise there (drumroll) "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

And that's the single best reason we have for being there - all the pre-war justifications aside. The only way for us to effectively win the global War on Terror is to get our military involved in the fight, and without an active battlefield, the WoT is reduced to the level of a police action.

But there is no such urgency or necessity which is why I keep asking you why you

To me, the continuing battlefield deaths of American soldiers create sufficient urgency to consider more efficient was to kill the enemy. Noncombatant deaths on the battlefield are a tragedy, but I would prefer if as few as possible Americans must give their lives for our country - if this means bringing in the MOAB, so be it.

[Dr. Frank fan]

To me, the continuing battlefield deaths of American soldiers create sufficient urgency to consider more efficient was to kill the enemy.

Please, if you know of any more efficient ways to kill the enemy, I'm all ears. Merely asking "Why is this taking so long????" does not qualify. :-)

Noncombatant deaths on the battlefield are a tragedy, but I would prefer if as few as possible Americans must give their lives for our country - if this means bringing in the MOAB, so be it.

Agreed, actually. But where shall we use the MOAB, in order to efficiently kill the enemy? Coordinates please? Dropping a MOAB on a random city is not, by any reasonable definition, an "efficient" way to kill the enemy, even if a few of 'em should happen to get hit by it.

For "use more force!!!" to be a sensible piece of advice, rather than just empty, valueless criticism that gives comfort ("see? conservatives are complaining too") to morale-sapping political-point-scoring war opponents for no good reason, one has to actually have some idea of where and how to use the force, as well as a good explanation for why that use of force will advance rather than hinder our objectives. (It's not obvious how dropping a MOAB somewhere in Iraq will advance any sensible objectives.)

We are facing a terror insurgency, and that means by definition that (because they are so weak, mind you!) they hide amongst the civilian population as one of their primary tactics. That's why combating terror insurgencies can take what seems to be a "long" time (cf. Malaysia), but it's fashionable to speak nowadays in awed, hushed tones (ooh! they blew up a building, then there were reprisals, so let's give up!) as if prevailing against terror insurgencies is somehow physically impossible, which is rubbish (cf. Malaysia).

Like I keep saying: yes, this will take a long time, but there is no good reason not to have the patience for it. We are a powerful nation which has the luxury of conducting this operation in a way that, frankly, barely touches the lives of most of us. American Idol hasn't been pre-empted, has it? Are people being asked to turn in their iPods for military use? What the hell am I missing here? "How much longer?!?!!? How much longer??!?" cry out millions of people from their couches between slurps of Starbuck's lattes. How much longer what, I can only respond? How much longer will "Iraq" be a TV news story that gives them unpleasant feelings?

Because, frankly, to 99% of the whiners, that is all that it is. So why the panic? Why the impatience? It is simply not rooted in reality.