Charles Krauthammer has the right answer to the immigration question.

This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.

This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense.

This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border control. If we do it right, not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

He is right. Read the whole thing. Perhaps, after they initially fail (which is what I expect to happen), the Congress can reach a compromise that builds a fence and then legalizes the 11 million. This will take some time, of course, but it is still possible.

I have written many times on this site that I believe the American people do not have the patience for long wars with hard to describe victory conditions. Twenty-two years ago I wrote my college thesis on the declining public and, therefore, congressional support for the limited wars in Korea and Vietnam. Once a traditional, easy to describe victory seemed no longer possible, the public and Congress lost the stomach for continuing the war. James Thayer is thinking along similar lines in his recent piece in the Weekly Standard.

IN ITS 230 YEARS of history the United States has engaged in only relatively quick military engagements. The last two and a third centuries have seen a world ravaged by constant, brutal hostilities, yet American military forces are in-and-out in three to four years.

There are two exceptions, of course. Precisely when the Vietnam War began for Americans is hard to say, but March 1965--when 3,500 Marines, the first combat troops--landed in South Vietnam (there were already about 20,000 U.S. advisers in the country)--is as good a moment to pinpoint as any. America's involvement ended in January 1973 when President Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action. United States troops were then quickly withdrawn. So the American portion of the war lasted about eight years. The distinction between Vietnam and the other wars listed above is that the United States lost the Vietnam War.

The other exception is the War of Independence. The first battles--Lexington and Concord--occurred in April 1775, and the war ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Yet even this length of time--eight years--is short, in terms of war.

...IT ONLY TAKES A GLANCE at history to know that nothing intrinsic in war limits conflicts to the American experience. Due to the quirks of history or to the skill of America's military or to luck--presuming anything regarding war can be called luck--the United States has fought short wars.

...And Iran's new foreign minister, Manuchehr Motakki, says, "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies." Meaning, he's confident America will quit the war on terror soon. It's been four and a half years now since war was thrust on us, and America's patience is quickly thinning.

The United States cannot lose the war on terror militarily. Our soldiers are too good, too well-equipped, and too ferocious. But we can still lose the war, if the American people--antsy and staring at our calendars, the wrong lesson of our military history heavy upon us--order them home.

Read the whole thing to understand the historical perspective that he uses to justify his contention that America's wars are usually short and, thus, America's patience for war is limited.