A snooty report Thursday in the Washington Post says President Trump has settled on a design for more wall on the southern border, and because it won’t be whatever the paper’s idea of a “wall” looks like, the Post is calling Trump a failure.

Who cares? If Trump follows through in putting up any substantial barrier on the border, it will be a 1,000% improvement in the appalling situation we have.

The Post report begins with the tried and true observation that the barrier will be “a steel bollard fence, not a concrete wall as he long promised.”

Why the media get a rise out of this distinction, I’ll never understand. But if it helps them sleep at night to say the “wall” won’t be full concrete, that’s fine.

Trump, by the way, never promised a full concrete wall, though for some reason the media have created the false memory that he did. Trump has, in fact, been frustratingly nonspecific about what the wall would look like and where it would even go, dating back to the 2016 campaign.

In February 2016, he said on Fox News that how the wall was constructed was “negotiable” and that “we need 1,000 of the 2,000” border miles to be a physical barrier. That month on MSNBC, he said, “What we're doing is we have 2,000 miles, right? … And of the 2,000, we don't need 2,000, we need a thousand because we have natural barriers, et cetera, et cetera.”

In August 2016, he said during a rally in Phoenix, “We will use the best technology including above and below ground sensors, that’s the tunnels. Remember that, above and below. Above and below ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance, and manpower to supplement the wall.”

There were times that Trump referred to a wall that included “precast plank,” which is basically concrete. And what do you know! The Post’s report on Thursday admitted that the steel bollard would be complemented by concrete. “The steel bollards remain vulnerable to sawing, but Homeland Security contractors have filled the hollow cavity of the metal with an undisclosed compound to make them more difficult to cut,” the paper said. “The material is poured to a certain height … and ordinary concrete, which is cheaper, is added after that.”

I’ve seen firsthand what this will look like, more or less, because it already exists. When I went to the Texas border this year, agents showed me where they have steel bollard and concrete “wall” (and yes, they do call it “wall”). It’s about 5 feet of concrete base and another 20 or 25 feet of steel on top. Every border agent told me those walls work in deterring and apprehending those who cross the border illegally.

The Post can feel a sense of superiority calling it a “fence,” and unsatisfied conservatives can cry about it not being a “wall.” It won’t matter. If Trump can get it built on a substantial length of the border, he will have done the job he was elected to do.

[Also read: Ann Coulter: If Trump knew English he would understand the meaning of 'WALL']