I notice Bush is starting to get unnerved by the faltering support for Iraq. And his government are now giving out mixed signals, whether because internal communication has completely broken down, or because they're trying to raise a smokescreen of confusing claims, isn't obvious.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US dwindling options in Iraq

So Rumsfeld says that it's likely it can take up to 12 years.

Back in September 2003 I wondered if a better analogy than Vietnam might be Northern Ireland with 30 years of low intensity fighting, and a continuously surpressed economy.

Now Iraq's situation is clearly a bit hotter than NI. And, so far, the various groups in Iraq's bazaar of violence haven't brought it back to the mainland US. But I think there are still similarities.

Also striking, the US death toll in Iraq is past 1700. It's not beyond imagination that it will get to pass the official number of deaths due to September 11th (2819). We're over half way, and this is only the beginning of year 3. In 12 years, the US can lose an awful lot more people than this.

When we pass that number, will the people of the US start to feel more fury against the incompetence and deliberate malice of Bush and the Neocons than they felt against Al-quaeda? And if not, why not?