Thanks for the note (and the link earlier today), I very much appreciate both.

S

Thank you for your continued thoughtful analysis. You have more patience than I do. Like you, I supported the war originally, but have come to distrust deeply the Bush administration. Separating fact from spin is a real challenge. The anti-war left is *almost* as bad as Bush in this regard. (Uh .. no, they are maybe half-as-bad.)

Anyway … good job.

My point is more about assessing the situation, and especially that anyone who thinks the situation is getting better is ignoring fundamental problems on the ground.

Indeed, I think you are missing much of my point, as you are focused primarily on the fact that you opposed the invasion and find the occupation illegitimate. I understand that, but what I am saying has nothing to do with that. At this point the situation is what it is, regardless of whether one likes it or not.

My specific point in this post is that one cannot speak of political progress if the Iraqi state lacks a basic security apparatus. And whether one likes it or not the only group of persons who can provide any actual measure of security at the moment is the US military. One may or may not like that fact, but I am not sure how one can deny it, as it is empirically true. Now, I would agree that they lack sufficient capabilities to actually secure the country. I also agree that they are a motivating force behind much of the violence. However, it is difficult to argue that the situation will would more secure in the short term when the US military leaves. That may be the right thing to do, but it will not immediately result in more security.

BTW, the “mistake” issue is that once the invasion happened, the administration made a number of mistakes in handling the situation. Such an observation is not meant to absolve anything, but is simply a statement of fact. Regardless of whether one supported, opposed or was ambivalent on the invasion, once it happened it is possible to assess the situation from that point. I understand your indignation over the entire situation, but once something has happened, one has to evaluate it based on what has happened, not what one wished had happened.

Although everyone knows that the exit of US troops will not solve the problems (or in any way diminsh US responsability for this horrendous, criminal disaster), I cannot help but seeing their removal as a first step towards Iraq one day being able to step out of its “made in USA” nightmare.

BTW, I find statements like “The basic upshot is that whatever security exists in Iraq is being provided by the US and, more importantly, the other way there is going to be any security in Iraq for the next year or so is if the US provides it.” quite disturbing.

Not only does it look like just another excuse to stay on in Iraq, but also I find it quite unsubstantiated that the US is providing any sort of security service at all. (In fact, the lack of security in Iraq is just one more American crime, and not a “mistake” or “planning error” as you seem to see it.) As an occupation army whose legitimacy is provided by its puppet government, and is in itself the source of great unrest, I find it difficult to understand how one can say that it is providing security services. More to the point, saying that an occupation army is providing security services could only ever make sense to the occupation power and its friends - and to no one else…

Regards.