So basically, you're complaining that we're not using enough of an iron fist to subdue the Iraqi population. Perhaps not. I am not sure. As I'm sure you realize, there is a tradeoff between the benefits of subduing holdout populations, and using so much of an iron fist that civil society becomes impossible in the foreseeable future. Are we hitting that tradeoff perfectly? I don't know, and perhaps not. But how do we know? Your major complaint seems to be that it's "taking too long", which might be a valid complaint, except that you show no consideration for the downside of doing things "faster" (=more ruthlessly). That's why your complaint carries little weight as far as I'm concerned. "Speed" as such is not and cannot be the only consideration here, but to you it seems to be. All that tells me is that you don't care very much about the goal of creating and safeguarding a reasonably sane, consensual government in Iraq; that's fine, but since I do, I am not persuaded by complaints such as yours.
Speaking for myself, I want to win, not only in Iraq but in all of the other places we must inevitably fight, as quickly as possible using any means necessary. Fighting a war with what appear to be half-measures is not a strategy for success.
That was not my question. My question was, in what way have you left "normalcy" to an extent that requires or motivates you to agitate and fiddle for doing things "faster"?
So we're doing things "slowly" and it's "taking a long time". (Maybe because we're trying to err on the side of not-indiscriminately-killing-so-many-civilians, which makes sense to me even if not to you.) What's it to you? How's the "too long" timeframe affecting you, really?
How do we set standards for how long it should take?
Why must we? Again, what's it to you. There is an ongoing US military presence in Iraq and there will be for years if not decades. "Setting standards for how long it should take" is necessary why?
How about just letting them do their job and not whining about it because you want to return to a "normalcy" which you never actually left? Suppose you went to a cabin in the woods and avoided TV/newspaper for six months. Would you even know about the "war" in Iraq which you have convinced yourself is bothering you so much?
Given the enormous advantage in military resources we have over our enemies, I don't just see why it is reasonable to expect a ten or fifteen or twenty year war.
Truth be told, it was a three-week "war". The "Iraq war" is over and we won. What is happening now is not a "war" per se. We are not fighting "against Iraq" or even an organized army of any kind. We simply have a military presence there to quell insurgencies and will for a while, so what? What's it to you?
I still just cannot for the life of me understand the impatience. Completely out of proportion with how it's actually affecting you or 99% of the other hand-wringers.