The Bush Administration and its apologists have lost all credibility. They have engaged in so much deception, distortion, manipulation, character assassination and outright lies that it is almost impossible to accept any positive report about this war's conduct. O'Hanlon shouldn't be shocked to be challenged. Americans feel so much outrage and cynicism that most will believe only what they can actually see. And what they have seen so far is bungling incompetence,tragic failure of leadership and endless quagmire. And whose fault is that?

Sent by Bill Allen | 4:35 PM ET | 08-17-2007

Great! now we have a better understanding of the situation in Iraq (being ironic!) You said, "Their argument that things have improved since those trips carries a little more weight when you know they were planned similarly.", Hum, all trips were at the invitation of the military, so do we have to believe a little more what O'Hanlon and Pollack say, because of that? Oh not you say it is a comparison, -bad before a little better now-. But Sir, if you start -100 and make a surge to -98, STILL the situation is BAD; more than 4000 coalition forces has been killed so far, thousand injured. Tell the mothers and fathers of the killed soldiers that there are good news from Iraq. Support the troops bring them home

Sent by Juan C Gallardo | 4:35 PM ET | 08-17-2007

As American citizens, we are allowed to determine that remaining in Iraq indefinitely is wrong. We have voted to end the bloodshed. Getting a late report that things are 5% better doesn't overrule the nation's consensus. If the American presidency continues to ignore the nation, then it's time to challenge the power and decision-making process of that office, since it appears that Congress no longer has the power or will to do so. The American people cannot forever tolerate any President ruling totally counter to the will of the people. That is the developing dilemma.

Sent by Ron Moxley | 5:07 PM ET | 08-17-2007

i smell a revolution

Sent by billy bob thorton | 6:18 PM ET | 08-17-2007

While it may be true that there has been incremental "progress" in some of the select areas in which General Petraeus has focused his troops' atttentions, the overall state of chaos/sectarian violence in the country as a whole remains at an unacceptably high level. There is nothing resembling genuine security and stability anywhere in the country.The average Iraqi--those without the means to join the mass exodus out of the country, that is--continues to live in fear. There is virtually zero improvement in "basic services" (the United States has spent $4 billion on the electrical production/distribution system with nothing to show for it). Iraqi security forces are, still, incapable of operating independently or reliably. As you may have noticed not a single U.S. soldier has yet "stood down". The Democratic majority in Congress MUST do the one, and only, thing they can do to reign in this administration's continued waste of our troops' lives in a fraudulent and futile conflict. They MUST vote down any and all further supplemental appropriations to continue funding this war.

Sent by Paul Genaux | 8:00 AM ET | 08-18-2007

I read with interest the comments re: "Getting Somewhere in Iraq". I am in a position to provide a different perspective on this issue than those already expressed. Currently, I am serving as a Public Affairs Officer with the US Army in Iraq. Before you write me off, give some thought to what I tell you. At the end of the day, whether you agree with the decision to get involved in Iraq or not (and remember, Bush had about 75-80% support for his decision when he first made it), whether you think Bush lied his a** off to get us here or not, whether you think the war was bungled from the start or not, is all irrelevant. That's right. It's irrelevant. The reality of the situation is that we are involved in Iraq now and that is all that matters. Once you get around to accepting that, you will find we have just two choices: either we stay and figure out a way to succeed, accepting that tragically, more people will die along the way, or we leave and in the process accept that tens of thousands of people have died so we can provide terrorists with a failed state to train in while at the same time setting the course of progress in the middle east back by decades. (Yes, I know you may not think terrorists were there before, but again it's irrelevant. They are now and they won't just up and leave.) Try and wrap your head around that thought for a minute. Tens of thousands of people. Dead. For nothing. Doesn't have a very nice ring to it. If we leave now, that's all we'll have to show for all the deaths, injuries, destruction, money, effort, etc. And oh by the way, if we suddenly run for the exits there will be repercussions. No one can say for sure what those will be exactly, but very few people think they will be pleasant. Personally, I'm not ready to accept that yet. Here's my challenge to you: figure out a way you can help instead of just complaining. Complaining is easy. Quitting is easy. Making a commitment to help and seeing it through is hard - trust me, I know - but it's the right thing to do. How can you help? Aside from the obvious (joining the military), you can: volunteer to join the Red Cross or Red Crescent over here, organize donations for Iraqis, donate blood, heck you can even come over here and work as a contractor or get together and figure a way to get me out of this mess that doesn't involve just giving up and leaving. You're all pretty smart, I'm sure if you thought about it you could figure out some way to make the situation better. You may even learn something while you're at it. I will leave you with this thought: For those of you who don't believe any of the positive reports you hear coming out of Iraq, ask yourselves under what circumstances you would believe them. I can assure you, depite all the bad news you hear, we are doing good work over here. Sure we make mistakes along the way, we're human after all, but for the most part we learn from them and we move on. And we keep doing what we've been doing for going on 5 years now: busting our butts over here to try and make this thing work. Anyway, there's my two cents worth. Check out the following story to get a feel for what serving in Iraq is like. It is, in a word, incredible:

http://www.esquire.com/features/essay/ESQ0307ESSAY

Sent by e.v., CPT USA | 12:18 PM ET | 08-18-2007

I think it is a fair questions "How willing are people to accept any good news coming out of Iraq?", I would ask another question. How much of the objection or support of the war political and how much of it is based on genuine belief. We are there, and that fact can not be denied. The real question is what now. Should democrats or republicans blindly accept the government's current handling of the situation, even if that performance is poor? This would foolish and extreme, but what about criticizing every move, is this a more mature reaction?

Sent by John Spooner | 1:33 PM ET | 08-18-2007

to the army captain: you will be saying the same BS 10 years from now. we aren't ever going to win and we aren't ever going to save face. period. accept that.

Sent by phil arnold | 7:15 PM ET | 08-18-2007

To the Captain. I served in the infantry. My uncle is serving in the infantry and heading to Iraq. My brother is an infantry platoon seargant and heading back to Iraq a 3rd time for 15 months instead of 12. I have had many friends die, get maimed, and continue to suffer ptsd and poor healthcare from the va, which every time they need money the Bush administration attempts to shut the bill down. Its more b.s. than anyone can stand and if you were out of the FOB or Green Zone you would know that its all about the contractors and the money their corporations bring to the administration in the u.s. All ethical reasons for going to Iraq are now thwarted and seeing progress, no matter how minute, is not why we went in, nor should we be trying to change the world through war as a means and peace as an ends. The two do not add up sir. I am now finishing grad school and know enough to see how the deception and call to do whatever the superiors tell you to is how the military really operates... and who is the commander in chief who signs those promotions of rank again????

Sent by P | 9:33 PM ET | 08-18-2007

A white Christian army which speaks no Arabic and depends on rifle fire and artillery and air strikes has done nothing to restore civil order in a Muslim country, and cannot. Soldiers kill and blow up things- that is their function. And in 5 years we have devasted a country, cut off electricity and water, and created 4 million refugees, internal and external. It cant work- there is no 'winning'

Sent by marvin thalenberg md | 11:21 PM ET | 08-18-2007

War, what war? Oh my, I thought it was over and now in its ethnic cleansing phase.

Progress - is that a joke? Stay the course and do the right thing - is that a joke too?

Some yahoo marching to the coming of the lord in a flak jacket has the answer? Oh please get real. What we are doing now is unequivocally irrelevant and will be the fodder for the dark pages of history and to be most likely aired on the history channel???someone pass the popcorn.

My dear friends, me head hurts from all this crap, I think I'll go puke!

Sent by george gekas | 8:06 AM ET | 08-19-2007

Just wanted to take a second and respond to some of the issues brought up re: my earlier post (well, maybe not just a second, this is a bit long). First, this is all in my "off time" so I've taken off my official "command message" hat. Understand some people may view my opinions a little...um...suspiciously anyway because of my current employer but that's probably a good thing.

To "P", we can play the "who's had life in the military the hardest" game forever, but suffice it to say that I've lost friends in this fight too, which I don't take lightly. Also, I'm an infantry officer and a former enlisted infantry machine gunner myself so it's possible we chewed some of the same dirt (good on you for going back to school btw). As far as questions about shaping my opinions or my actions based on possible future promotions, I'll say this much: as an officer, fun and rank are inversely correlated. In other words, I'd stay a lieutenant for 20 years if they'd let me. For now I'm chained to a desk (not that that's safe by any stretch of the imagination, I had a 122mm rocket land just a few meters from me the other day) but when I come back in a couple of years I'll be commanding an infantry or engineer company, so I'll be experiencing first hand the repercussions of the "B.S." I'm putting out.

Personally, I thought getting involved here in the first place was a bad idea, but I still think we can pull a decent outcome out of this. Almost certainly not a western style democracy, but something that puts Iraq on a path that could lead to one in 30 years or so. Sure it's not what we were originally sold, but it's a worthy goal none the less. All we need is the courage and commitment to find a way to do it. Well, that and to find a way to convince the Iraqis to start working together (which, btw they are increasingly doing at the local level, just need the national level guys to do the same). We put people on the moon using computers with less power than the watch I'm wearing right now, I'm sure we can find a way to make this work.

To those who think peace can't come through war: what about WWII? But, you may counter, what about Vietnam? A valid question, but the simple truth is an army, like many other things, is a tool and it can be used for good or bad. Marvin brought up a good point, armies kill people and break things (you were wrong tho about who is responsible for devastating Iraq. Iraqis can thank the insurgents for that. Also, we have done a lot to restore civil order in the country...just not enough). In our country, the who gets killed and what gets broken are decisions for elected officials. Also, if it's true that we are a "white Christian army which speaks no Arabic" (it isn't btw, we are certainly not all white at least, although the military is largely conservative and Christian and we could definitely use more Arabic speakers), then whose fault is that? Who is to blame if only Christian conservatives sign up? We take what we can get, and (generally speaking) liberals and non-Christians and economically well off people like doctors stay away in droves. If you want a more representative military, then call for a fair draft or for a universal military service requirement.

But again, that's not really the issue. The issue is: what now? If we kill the right people and break the right things and then follow that up with the right political strategy, I think we can pull something positive out of this. For those who say we should just tell the Iraqis "So long and thanks for the fish" and then take off, what's your plan for the day after? We are (finally) starting to get the counter insurgency fight right, it would be a shame in my mind to leave now.

I'll close with a couple of thoughts. First, whatever your position on the war, what are you doing to challenge your assumptions about what's going on over here? Me, I volunteered to come over and picked a job where I could see for myself. Still haven't made up my mind if the good outweighs the bad yet, but I have seen enough to know that we can pull something resembling a good outcome out of this. Second, would you think differently about being involved here if Gore or Kerry had come up with the idea instead of Bush (that goes for people on either side, including me)? A lot of the talk I hear about pulling out seems to come from people who seem to be all for nation building in general but not for this particular bit. I hear a lot about pulling out of Iraq and in the next breath I hear talk about sending me to Darfur. To paraphrase a certain former SECDEF we all know and love, we don't get involved in the nation building we might want, we get involved in the nation building we have. Well, this is the nation building project we've got and it's a doozy. The payoff is huge if we get it right, the downside risk is huge if we get it wrong. What more could you want from a project? Sure the way we got involved might suck and it may sting a bit that if it works a Republican gets the credit, but that still doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

As for whether or not I will be saying the same B.S. 10 yrs from now, I guess it all depends on how my deployment goes. I'll change my tune and admit I was wrong if what I see and hear convinces me we can't succeed. On the other hand, for those who are convinced we should just leave, ask yourselves what if anything could convince you that you are wrong? If the answer is "nothing" then how are you any different than the people who supposedly blindly ignored other opinions and got us into this situation in the first place? Well, I suppose that's enough for now. One of the benefits of having a desk job I guess is that when I'm off I have plenty of time to write long blog posts.

Sent by e.v. CPT USA | 9:13 AM ET | 08-19-2007

Dear Tom Regan, sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you, but this post of yours is complete rubbish.

You write: "But Greenwald did zero in on an important point -- by not disclosing the details of their trip, O'Hanlon and Pollack made it easier for critics to accuse them of being military cheerleaders." Did you read Greenwald's post on O'Hanlon? I assume that (a) you didn't, which would seem a fair conclusion if the above is what you come up with as Greenwald's one "important point"; or (b) you did, but didn't understand it - also a reasonable conclusion from the sloppy thinking and writing your own blog demonstrates; or (c) you did, but choose to spin it in this nonsensical manner for ideological reasons.

The real important points Greenwald made about O'Hanlon were two. First, O'Hanlon and Pollack, in writing their NYT Op-Ed piece on how great things are going in Iraq, failed to disclose that the trip on which they based their findings was entirely managed for them by the military. Second, that the mainstream media (including NPR, though Greenwald doesn't point this out specifically), in portraying O'Hanlon and Pollack as long-time liberal critics of the Iraq war and thereby enhancing the credibility of their claim that the war is going well, ignored O'Hanlon's long record of boosting the war in print.

You write, lamely: "what Greenwald doesn't note is that the military also helped to set up the duo's interviews on their previous trips to Iraq, which they use as points of comparison (I checked on this with Brookings). Their argument that things have improved since those trips carries a little more weight when you know they were planned similarly."

Sorry, but this makes absolutely zero sense. Your logic is that if someone uses the same source for two or more articles, the latest article is therefore more credible? How does that work? What are you actually saying? And why should I do your work for you by trying to figure it out?

If anyone reading this has not read Greenwald's Salon post on O'Hanlon, they should. It's a scathing, detailed account of the media's continuing support for the Iraq war. The only non-wasted byte in Tom Regan's post is his link to Greenwald's post.

Sent by Chris Fujiwara | 12:04 PM ET | 08-19-2007

Being a Vietnam vet, I can say from experience that the golden rule to being in the Army was "Never volunteer for anything." That, and when the bullets started flying, pull the buttons off your shirt so you can get closer to the ground.

Oh, yeah. There was another golden rule about being in Vietnam. It was better to get killed on your first day in 'Nam than it was on your last day in 'Nam. At least you didn't have to put up with twelve months of Vietnam before dying.

But, let's get back to the first golden rule, that issue about never volunteering. Volunteering for things go you killed. First day there, or last. Vietnam was a conglomeration of Regular Army enlistees, and draftees. Later, the lottery system was initiated. Before that, you either went to a community college for a minimum of twelve credit hours per term, or you got drafted. Or, you went to Canada.

Fast forward to Iraq: Everyone there volunteered. You don't want to go into the infantry, you don't enlist into the army, or marines, or whatever. Stay home. You don't even have to go to your local community college.

Okay, ask me why people enlist knowing they are going to Iraq, and I'll tell you that they were probably bored with their life back on the farm. Or in the ghetto. Don't laugh. I knew guys in Vietnam who said they felt safer in 'Nam then they felt back in the 'hood.

You get to wondering when the Pentagon will run out of volunteers to go to Iraq. So far they haven't. I suppose a couple hundred thousand volunteers out of a nation of 300 million can keep the war going indefinitely. The Democrats aren't going to stop the war any quicker than the Republicans. Everyone's owned by the oil conglomerates and the defense industry's military industrial complex General/President Eisenhower warned about.

What it comes down to is that war does not create peace. World War One created World War Two that created the Cold War era Korean War and Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan and one and on. War is big business. A real money maker. Not so much for the guys and girls who volunteer. But it's a real money maker to arms merchants of the ilk of Victor Bout and all the defense contractors who put out massive amounts of war machinery. If there's a plus to conventional warfare, maybe, just maybe, it'll hold off nuclear or biological warfare for a while. Not forever. Eventually conventional warfare will lead to the nuclear winter. Why? Because basically never in the course of human history has there been a war when nobody, absolutely nobody volunteered. We are just not a peaceful, fun loving species, except for maybe a half hour in a church somewhere. Or a couple of hours on Christmas Eve. After that, then it's back to business as usual.

Don Rumsfeld knows this. By this time you should know this. The day the war ends is the day America runs out of fossil fuel. That, or set up a picket line in front of every recruiting office in America and don't let anyone new enlist. Before you go through all those strategies, try to remember this: The direction technology is going, in the near future each Iraqi embedded infantry soldier will be able to produce the firepower of a hundred Vietnam era embedded infantry soldiers. The Army won't need as near as many volunteers. The war will be fought with joysticks operating drones and robots. War could get so virtually real fun that the recruiters would have to use a stick beat away X-Box generation enlistees.

So, when you are driving along in your S.U.V., debating over your cell phone how long this war will go on, remember this: when we run out of fossil fuel, your computer won't work anymore - fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 3:04 PM ET | 08-19-2007

Whew! I'm back from puking. And Tom, right or wrong I still love ya, thanks for opening up this can of worms...it now gets interesting. Let the flurry of opinion go where it may. But I must say I'm pissed because we (myself included) have become so pedestrian in our concept, privilege if you will, of effective means for protest. To blog or not to blog, to blah or not to blah - if I had a different avenue available I'd much prefer to take to the streets, take a few hits even, with a few hundred thousand folks and get in someone's face. It worked in '69.

Billy Bob, your right it does smells like a revolution. Unfortunately at this time and date it's a par boiled one and I can't think of a single hero who has the capacity to galvanize the citizenry into doing the right thing - into saying enough is enough. Cindy was close though; we should be ashamed for not standing with her. So all we have now is this heart felt murmuring between strangers. A wonderful day will be when we leave the keyboard, walk out that door, and meet those strangers in the street. I'm still naive enough to think that real patriots exist - somewhere.

To e.v., CPT USA: you baffle (and depress) me almost as much as my brother in law who has two tours under his belt and possibly awaiting a third. And ditto for my other 2 star brother in law. Like him (them) and whether you believe it or not everything you are saying is BS, ambiguous, and fraught with historical inaccuracies. Like them, you swallowed the party line hook line and sinker and are now trying to convince yourself otherwise, or at the very least leaving a door open when it all goes south - and sadly it will. Our approach is nothing short of an alien in concept, and for US to think we can willy-nilly inject our brand of right/wrong is a blatant arrogance in the face of 1,000 years plus of feudal and tribal alliances. Please people; take the time to brush up on a little history 101. We lost from the very first day we stepped foot on that parched soil littered with too many silent and long forgotten histories to count. And aside from all that this is nothing more than a corporate war, just one of many to come, it's backers have their roots in Wall Street and the unsuspecting share holders who want a secure retirement fund and a little place in the sun till the lights go out. Simply put it's oil stupid, and next to come it will be water rights. We ain't seen nothing yet baby so please don't have the audacity to compare this policing war to that of WWll, or Darfur. We missed our chance to be real heroes as in the legacy of our fathers. Under a compassionate and brave leadership Darfur would have been the honorable mission, but it was the wrong color and of little value to corporate coffers. It's ludicrous to even suggest Iraq was motivated by humanitarian rescue. There was no policy in place till after the fact, make it up as you go along is more like it - affirmative, roger that, period! Even though I personally think you're quite brave and respect you for putting it out there I seriously doubt you'll find many on this blog who would agree with your reasoning, but still I'll be the first to welcome your dialog - it's why we love this country.

So tell me why you felt it was necessary to put all your energies into joining, if as you say, you thought it (the going to war policy) was a bad idea in the first place? Come on, a little therapy here, you got pumped, carried away by the wave - right? Well E.V., please travel safely and come home in one piece, and tell us what you've really seen with your own eyes. We are not here to desert or to turn our backs on you - that is a history none of us wishes to see repeated.

(no relationship to george W. gekas)

Sent by george gekas | 8:46 PM ET | 08-19-2007

Long responses cant get read
For the captain- we have a white Christian Muslim perception. And in the huge new embassy, there are 15 fluent speakers of Arabic.
We have armed the enemy and create more insurgents every day with detentions and killing civilians.
And as Petraeus has said, we run out of replacements in April. So we have to withdraw anyway- it's just when and how
MT

Sent by marvin thalenberg md | 10:29 PM ET | 08-19-2007

One thing you leave out is that O'Hanlon and Pollack weren't the only "experts" on the now infamous "golden tour." Anthony Cordesman, the Center for Strategic and International Studies military expert, was also on that tour. Cordesman participated in many of the same military coordinated meetings with US personnel and Iraqis. As I suspect you are aware, Cordesman came to a much different conclusion about the situation in Iraq and the prospects for US success. Neither O'Hanlon nor Pollack mentioned that there junket was attended by other experts.

Sent by William Hurley | 3:05 AM ET | 08-20-2007

The Captain makes a few good points about how the history behind how we got in the war is not the important thing. The truth is, we're there now, we deposed the old government, and we need to figure out the best way to move forward. Similarly, he makes the valid point that the fact that there are terrorists there now is more important then whether there were terrorists there before. Unfortunately, he then makes the mistake of arguing that the history of how many people we have lost is relevant. That's the classical "sunken cost" fallacy.

His argument about leaving behind training camps for terrorists does have some merit, but he ignores the argument that our presence is perhaps the most successful argument that terrorists use when recruiting new members.

Sent by Ben Hocking | 9:35 AM ET | 08-20-2007

There was a soldier in our town who was a Green Beret. He came home from the first invasion of Iraq real angry that the first President Bush had called back the troops fifty miles from going into Baghdad. He quit the Green Beret and went to France to join the French Foreign Legion. He was gone for six or seven months. When he came back home, he looked like he had been in a dogfight. He told us he never even got past the training period in the French Foreign Legion. He said the instructors must have broken his nose four times. He showed us where they broke his ribs kicking him while he was down on the ground. We asked him what he had done wrong to get beaten up like that by the instructors. He told us that they treated every recruit that way. You had to be tough to be in the French Foreign Legion. He told us that was the first time since he'd been in the military that he had broken down and cried. When he did cry, they sent him back to America and said he wasn't tough enough to be in the legion.

Sent by dan | 10:11 AM ET | 08-20-2007

MT: My apologies, I tend to get a bit wordy late at night. Just got a note from Regan to keep it shorter so I'll do my best to cut myself off after a few thoughts. You and Ben are both correct in that we have a perception problem and that problem may be helping the terrorists recruit. It's a compelling point and one we should consider. However, I think it's also worth considering that 60-65% of the Iraqis themselves said in an independent poll recently that they want us to stay. The question is ultimately are we doing more harm than good and the Iraqis seem to think we are doing more good. For now I agree.

Ben: You're right. I was going to tell you that you're full of hooey but I went back and read what I wrote and I did make a sunken cost type argument and I should know better. What I was really going for was more along the lines of: due to what this has cost us it's worth a moment or two of somber reflection before writing this off. Also, the cost will have repercussions if we don't figure out a way to give the Iraqis a constructive way to handle being p.o.'d about the cost (i.e. spiral of violence and all).

To Greg and for anyone else who may be interested (and I realize this may not win me any friends here) I am really struggling with this dichotomy between an absolute refusal on the left to consider helping in Iraq and/or Afghanistan and a deification if you will of the cause of helping in Darfur. Putting aside the relative morality arguments of getting involved in one vs getting involved in the other (Bush conveniently rendered those moot when we invaded), I don't understand why people aren't lining up to help. In Iraq and Afghanistan right now you have people being tortured to death because of their religion and/or their ethnicity. In Iraq and Afghanistan right now you have women and girls who can't leave their homes because if they do they get raped and murdered, or just murdered, or maybe raped and sent home so their families can murder them. You also have kids dying of preventable diseases, kids living in poverty without access to education, kids practically living in raw sewage. Heck, pick your cause you can find it over here. And more importantly, these are some of the same themes, the same causes, people use to try and rally support for intervening in Darfur. Are the Iraqis less deserving of help because they had the misfortune of being born on top of a resource Exxon wants and we need? Sure, "No Blood For Oil" and "Oh, this is just a corporate war" make good slogans and they are convenient ways to shroud doing nothing behind a facade of morality but I would argue that the really immoral course of action is to let the fact that you are pissed off at the guy who got us into this mess cloud your decisions re: what to do from here. As the website says: MoveOn. That logic is just as wrong as arguing that we should stay because we've already spent so much in getting where we are now. And it's even more immoral and irresponsible to talk about leaving one mucked up country before we figure out how to un-muck it so we can go muck up a different one. Maybe Darfur in early 2003 was the morally untainted choice. But you don't get Darfur in 2003. However, you've got Iraq/Afghanistan now. Right now. Not tomorrow. Not when we get a compassionate and brave administration. Right now. These people could really use a hand, my question is why are you turning your backs on them? (PS: "History" type arguments don't wash, history has been very unkind to representative gov'ts, humanitarian assistance missions, peace keeping/nation building projects, etc in Africa. I'll post more about history later.)

Sent by e.v. CPT USA | 3:11 AM ET | 08-21-2007

George: You brought up some interesting points re: the lessons of history. First tho, thanks for your support. However, you shouldn't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for the Iraqis. I had the luxury of being able to think through what I was getting myself into before I volunteered to come over here, they don't. As to why I decided to go, it's a good question (Carried away by the wave?? Yeesh, far from it, I was marching in anti war protests before we invaded). What it came down to was I couldn't just do nothing. I couldn't sit it out and watch friends of mine go for the 3rd or 4th time and I couldn't watch what's going on in Iraq without doing something to help make the situation better. Maybe it is doomed to fail, but at least I tried...

Now, as promised, on to your history lessons. Unfortunately, history can be a bit of a fickle teacher and the lessons drawn are subject to being colored by perceptions. The trick is realizing what filters you are using. You talk about empires fighting across the middle east for thousands of years and of religious hatreds that date back about 600, both of which are good points and points that maybe we should have paid attention to before we got involved over here. But, the history of Europe is remarkably similar in many ways and in the past few decades the Europeans have managed (hopefully) to tie themselves together enough economically that we won't have to worry about them dragging the rest of the world into another fight. Also, talk of ethnic/religious hatreds draws the inevitable comparison with Yugoslavia, and the conclusion that we should use the partition of Yugoslavia as a model for what to do with Iraq. It's an interesting idea (good article on this in the NY Times recently btw) but the model isn't a very good fit. I'd suggest that there is a good lesson to be learned from the breakup of Yugoslavia however (and again it's one we should have paid more attention to in the beginning): it was a good demonstration of what can happen when you take an ethnically diverse population, repress it for a while and then take the lid off. You can get anarchy, then thugs, criminals, and ex political hacks who are more than happy to fan underlying and in some cases not so underlying tensions for their own benefit. Lesson here: we've got several groups of people in Iraq that are pretty pissed at each other, if we leave there's a good chance that an unsavory character or two will exploit those divisions to seek political power, and the results won't be pretty. The beauty of the situation we're in right now is that this is happening to some extent now and may take off even if we stay. Of course there are other historical models/lessons that may apply as well, notably the history of how conflicts end. There was a good write up of this in Foreign Affairs in the past few months. The conclusion was that in general conflicts end in one of two ways: one side beats the others into submission, or the different sides bleed each other until they can't take it anymore. I'm not entirely convinced those models don't apply to some degree to Iraq. Maybe they'll need to go through something similar to our own civil war before they come together as a country. Of course, there is an end of conflict model that is much more positive: the end of Apartheid in South Africa. Maybe that model can work in Iraq. The real lesson of history, if there is one, is that there is no perfect lesson from history, no perfect model that you can apply uniformly to a given situation. For example, if we decide to leave and we want to apply a blanket model to the possible break up of Iraq, which do we choose: Czechoslovakia; Yugoslavia; Somalia; Sudan? Or if we want to stay and we want a model for nation building, which do we choose? Japan or Germany post WWII?? Neither of those fit. What you can do, however, is look at what people did in given situations, what different governments did in given situations, and try and learn from them. For example, we're having some of the same problems in the same regions as the British had in the early 1900's. What if anything did they do that worked and what didn't? That is the type of historical analysis that can prove helpful in this situation, not blanket declarations re: the fate of other empires. Also, differences can be instructive as well. Ask, for example, why Europe apparently broke its cycle of violence (mostly) while the Middle East hasn't (the answer could very well be something on the order of: because external governments keep getting involved in adventures in the Middle East).

Sent by e.v. CPT USA | 3:22 AM ET | 08-21-2007

Okay, I'm tired of this debate about how long the replies should be. Let's cut to the quick.

The Democrats have conceded the '08 election by putting their money on Hillary and O'Bama (pretty much like they conceded the last election by chosing Kerry).

You got Mit Romney and a Fred Thompson ticket winning in '08 (if the elections were held today..maybe someone else in the GOP will show up at the last minute. I doubt it.)

It doesn't matter if it is GOP or the Dems, like George said, "America is addicted to oil." What a silver tongued devil he can be when he wants to be.

57,000 died in Vietnam over ten years, some 24,000 died in Korea over two years. The body count in Iraq is, what, 3,000 so far. War is still old rich men talking and making money while young poor boys die. Face reality.

The Iraq colonization continues. The question is not how long the war will go on. The question is whether in the future oil imperialism will break the American economy. Mel Gibson is prepared to direct a whole new series of Road Warrior movies to keep pace.

And the truth is that far, far, far more Americans will be driving SUVs and Hummers than will be marching in Washington protesting the war. Face it, you'll never see the 70s protestation again. Both sides of the congressional aisle know this little fact for gospel.

Ya know, Nazi Germany used synthetic fuel to fight the last couple of years of that war............fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 11:11 AM ET | 08-21-2007

Hmmm...seems like everyone took their ball and went home, or no one wants to respond anymore. Well, on the off chance that anyone is still out there, I'd like to respond to something else George posted re: what I see and hear over here.

As to what I see over here, well I'll put out a couple of things that give me some hope. First, a bunch of the Sheiks from different tribes (about 100, both Sunni and Shia) in our region got together recently and publicly swore on the Koran to work together to solve some of the issues they've been killing each other over. Think about that. They basically are serious enough about making some semblance of a government work that they are willing to 1) get over being pissed at their historical enemies and 2) paint a big bull's-eye on their chests because guaranteed they are now targets. Second, there are a bunch of places where government at a local level is stepping up and restoring government services. These are small steps to be sure, but the big deal is that the Iraqis are working across sectarian lines to make these things happen.

Three other things I've seen give me some hope: First, the Iraqis for the most part forgot to hate each other for a while after the Iraqi soccer team won the Asia Cup (just don't look too closely or you may realize that the Iraqi team hasn't actually played in Iraq for years...) Second, in the aftermath of the recent horrendous suicide bombings in northern Iraq, the Iraqis forgot to hate each other long enough to get relief supplies flowing and to care for the wounded. The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Health along with Kurdish, Sunni and Shia local govt officials were on the scene and coordinating with each other within a few hours. Compare that with our own performance during/after Katrina...Third, I think back to the first elections. Iraq had what? something like an 80% voter participation rate? And that was risking death to take part. Compare that to what, 35-40% or so in the US where all we risk is the sometimes not so small inconvenience of missing work? Are these turning points? Not hardly. Are they incremental steps in the right direction? You bet. They are sparks, inklings of what is possible I suppose. As far as bad stuff, well you can turn on the TV and see plenty of that and it's pretty representative. When it's all said and done tho, when and if Iraq hits a real turning point, you won't need me or some govt official or some think tank wonk with a PhD in Middle East Affairs to parse it for you. It'll be obvious.

Sent by e.v. CPT USA | 5:53 AM ET | 08-22-2007

1 The Sunnis did not vote in the general election.
2 There may be local areas of improvement, but Baghdad is destroyed, nonfunctioning and being abandoned. It has no electricity, sewage runs out of the water taps. The shiite South is being abandoned by the Brits, and is ruled by Mafia militants.
3 Our contry is being destroyed- no money for education, research, infrastructure. Bush is going to veto health insurance for millions of kids- which would cost less than 10 weeks of this war
And finally- abouthalf of our dead are irreplaceable sergeants, master sergeants, warrant officers ( as today). And ther is no coherent end in sight just more and more of the same till we run out of replacements in April. Then what?

Sent by marvin thalenberg md | 9:02 PM ET | 08-22-2007

With a claim of "piling on" by those who question NPR's predilection for offering the bright side of the Iraq War "surge", and ending with the question, "How willing are people to accept any good news coming out of Iraq?" One need only look at NPR's record of shameless cheerleading in the run-up to this illegal war. Whether it's the perrenial parade of of "expert opinions" from the halls of the Amerirican Enterprise Institute, or current and former "military officials", NPR's predilection for happy face angles of coverage clearly intending to downplay unspeakable tragedy, or the stunning absence of balance from those who saw the quagmire of lies the premise for war was built upon, NPR has failed the public and journalism, miserably. One need only seek the real story spoken from the perspective of those who must survive each day in Iraq, such as the recent statements from the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne, to understand NPR is complicit in the lead-up and maintenance of this illegal war through lies and propaganda. Shame, disgrace, dishonor!

Sent by Davian | 1:46 PM ET | 08-26-2007

I gave this "troop surge" my last psychological reason to accept recall & deployment to Iraq. I told myself this is something I could still fight for. If you guys think "we" should pay for it because we broke it, then I say "we" already have paid for it greatly with our blood and our treasure. But who has not paid yet??? The people that got us in this mess! The neo-conservatives. The media. They need to pay, and BIG. I'm talking impeachment, sentencing, and confiscation of assets. They swore to uphold the same constitution that I swore to uphold. They're traitors in my opinion. The chicken hawks must pay. Maybe then I'll admit that it's worth another shot. Until you put the words of Marine General Smedley Butler to rest that "War Is A Racket" I'm not fighting this war with a good conscience. Break up this racket!

Sent by Earl | 5:10 PM ET | 09-09-2007