Some drone on NPR's Sunday morning program just reported that the war appeared to be bogging down because "it has already lasted longer than the ground portion of the Gulf War" (no mention, of course, of the weeks of bombing beforehand) "or the Israeli Six Day War".

The Six-Day War? So if the war lasts seven days or more, it's to be judged a failure?

Folks, we have a well-earned reputation in the Middle East for cutting our losses and running away when the going gets rough. It's not a failure of our troops; they've always been willing to stand and fight.

But our leaders have been fools and cowards, and have completely misjudged the consequences of their actions, from the decision not to defend the US Embassy in Tehran onwards. (Even Ronaldus Magnus has been found wanting: the Beirut mission was an even bigger disaster on the geopolitical level than on the military level.)

Time after time, we've made the same mistake: committing troops without committing ourselves. We go in talking a good game, but when something goes wrong, we cave, pack up, go home. Tehran, Beirut, Mogadishu -- these things add up, and give us a reputation as a paper tiger.

We are now engaged in, among other things, undoing the damage to our reputation for faint-hearted political leadership. The only way to do that is to face, and pass, a severe test of our will.

Declaring defeat if we haven't won in six days is the worst thing we could possibly do, the costliest thing we can do in terms of lives potentially lost. Because next time the test will be harsher still.

Bush was questioned about our forces being "bogged down", and his answer was exactly right: we will prevail, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes.

Now we just have to live up to that.