Iraq: Progress, Why No Patience?

There will be a sickening wave of letters in the LATimes tomorrow, responding with blind rage to Frederick Kagan's op/ed this morning; the one that starts with:

Despite what you may have read, the military situation in Iraq today is positive — far better than it ever was when we were fighting guerrillas in Vietnam, or when the Soviets were fighting the Afghan mujahedin, or in almost any other major insurgency of the 20th century.

Kagan's piece is not news. It simply recounts the facts surrounding a failing, anti-Democracy, terroristic insurgency in a country that has fully embraced Democracy. It points out that our forces, which increasingly means Iraqi forces, can move at will, strike at will, and fight for an alternative that is in synch with the will of the people.

Arguing that ...

It is thus unwise to measure progress in Iraq by the number of deaths or bombs in a given period. Progress must instead be measured in the establishment of a stable and legitimate government and the creation of state structures able to function even in the face of attacks.

... Kagan promotes patience, and asks the president to stay the course, ignoring calls for troop withdrawals so we can get the job done.

Which raises the question: How can Libs be so impatient to see an end to the war while at the same time they can wait patiently for decades for any evidence that their pet programs are really accomplishing anything?