I've not commented on the Iraq situation of late because it just takes too darn much time to gather information in order to get the whole picture. Most American news agencies are mostly interested in stories with an easily-identifiable human faces: mortal attacks on American soldiers, the hunt for Hussein, et. al. They have no patience with analysis or more in-depth stories or stories without heroes or villains. So...while on the other hand, the work continues apace and, apparently things are improving - we don't read stories about the rebuilding of the infrastructure, if it's happenind, or whatever else is happening. The attacks are not the whole story, but they are happening, and real soldiers are dying, and I've read here and there that there are many more attacks han are being reported, because, in general, CentCom only reports attacks with fatalities.
And no one here uses the word "quagmire" and no one here thinks the work is impossible, and definitely no one here thinks the US should withdraw - that would be irresponsible and immoral at this point. Serious questions remain, however, about the relationship between truth and falsehood in regard to the arguments for war, and anyone who is seriously interested in issues of truth and integrity who blows these issues off, saying that the ends justifies the means..well..what truth and integrity are you speaking for anyway?
All of this is by way of unnecessary prologue to this quite startling quote from an op-ed that appears in the Washington Times today:
The North Vietnamese and their Viet Cong allies were bright, skilled, resourceful, well-led, and very brave.
In Iraq, we're fighting Arabs.