Washington ? Insiders here understandably shake their heads at many Americans’ impatience with the nation’s progress in the war against terrorism. As evidence of successes from which Americans should draw inspiration, they point to recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S.-led forces prevailed.

Indeed, largely because of U.S. efforts, terrorist-supporting or sympathizing governments fell in those countries and many terrorists died.

But those who lived have an added incentive to plot vengeance. So, ironically, wars meant to limit terrorism point toward expanding violence. Americans should prepare themselves for a long struggle; the campaign against terrorism remains in its infancy.

For example, recent news reports have discussed the possibility that Osama bin Laden anticipated — more than previously believed — a devastating U.S. military assault in Afghanistan as a response to 9-11. As a precaution, according to those reports, he ordered hundreds of al-Qaida officers to leave Afghanistan before the bombing started. Some could have headed to the United States, which potentially bodes ill for Americans.

Still, I contend that bin Laden failed to gauge correctly the sustained intensity of the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan or to foresee the ultimate objective of dislodging the Taliban and scattering al-Qaida, which amounted to a major setback for terrorism.

Only after those goals became apparent did bin Laden accelerate his efforts to rally terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida’s network, to face the U.S.-led global coalition against terror. That dastardly grouping almost certainly looms behind spectacular terrorist attacks of late and others that could follow in the weeks and months ahead.

Similarly in Iraq, the U.S.-led intervention clearly eliminated a terrorist refuge. And, to the extent that Americans locate weapons of mass destruction, the opportunity for those devices to fall into terrorist hands diminishes. Recent finds, such as documents and components related to nuclear-weapons development, raise the possibility that more of the much-discussed weapons of mass destruction will show up. Such developments represent gains in the war against terrorism.

Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq has a flip side: It has produced far more terrorists and other extremists than it killed or displaced. The same people in various nations who disputed the war’s legitimacy despise the ongoing American occupation of Iraq. The angriest among them — those who yearn to strike out at U.S. interests — have found welcoming hands at al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

The longer the Bush administration takes to restore order in Iraq, the more leeway terrorists will have to inspire new followers. Actually, the same goes for Saddam loyalists and other anti-U.S. forces that have stepped up their attacks against the United States and its allies in Iraq. Thus, they have focused their efforts on preventing a return to normalcy.

That chaotic mess gives the Bush administration limited time. But the window of opportunity spans at least several months. Critics who wail and cry that the United States has not yet subdued opponents and restored order in Iraq are just as unrealistic as the pundits who said the battle phase of the war would last a few days.

Before the conflict started, sensible analysts realized that the entire intervention would take a minimum of two to three years.

In other words, the work has barely begun — in Iraq and in the war against terrorism — and Americans would do well to swallow a considerable dose of patience.