We are controlling a territory the size of California, containing over twenty million people. We did this in weeks.

We are rebuilding the infrastructure, and creating a political and educational base for a free society.

Now, we are being attacked 35 times a day by small scattered groups from a contingent of about 5,000 leftover Saddam worshipers. Saddam himself, if he lives, scurries like a rat from hole to hole to avoid capture. There are no armies against us, no air forces, no lines of troops. There are no cities under the control of the enemy. There are no provinces held by Saddam and his people. The resistance is barely organized, and increasingly desperate to create a "Beirut Incident" that they hope will break what they see as a rather feeble will to succeed. If they listen to the American news, it's not surprising they'd come to the conclusion that this would work.

Since this war started, about eight months ago, we have lost about a quarter of the Americans to hostile action that we lost in the single assault on Omaha Beach.

There is not a general in human history that would not define this as an amazing victory, with an occupied nation "under control." I'm tired of sitting here and letting the opposition define military parameters as though they actually knew squat about it.

When did we suddenly accept the definition of a successful military campaign as one in which nobody ever gets hurt and nobody shoots at you?

Maybe it's time we examine letting the media and the Left decide what the parameters are for military success.

And yes, the "strategy is evolving." Since the writers apparently also know little about how wars are fought, that's how it's done. It doesn't mean the military leaders are stupid, just not omniscient. Don't think I don't remember all the drastically wrong predictions the anti-war people made, even though the press swept them under the rug.