Unlike Iraq, our peace-keeping presence in Kosovo represents only a small percentage of the international force there. And unlike Iraq, we didn't lose any U.S. soldiers to hostile fire in Kosovo. Nor did we spend anywhere near $4 billion a month for reconstruction. And we have Milosovec in custody whereas in Iraq, Saddam still runs free.

There weren't any NATO losses because the campaign consisted largely of eleven weeks of massive aerial bombing, without a lot of effort to spare civilian casualties. It's not hard to avoid getting your own soldiers and pilots killed if you don't care how many people get killed in the target areas. NATO flattened a lot more civilian targets than we did in Iraq. Depending on who you ask, civilian casualties ranged from less than a hundred (the Pentagon) to as many as 5,000 (Yugoslavia).

As I recall, Milosevic was arrested in April of 2001. How long after the NATO campaign ended (June 10, 1999) was that? By the same standards, we will be doing equally as well if we nail Saddam sometime before March of 2005.

I will grant that there is some hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when support for Kosovo and Iraq are compared.