[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

And please read the article with an open mind. Although I do know some of you are going to look at who wrote it, see that he works for the New York Post and dismiss it as political BS.

Now why would anyone want to do that?

It's undoubtedly the case that the situation in Iraq is more complex than the media picture that we get here. Understanding Iraq through the media is like reading a map with a telescope--it's hard to get the big picture.

But as you yourself note, this isn't exactly an unbiased source. He refers to the Brookings Institution as "unbiased," works for the famously conservative NY Post--and this article is published in a magazine whose editors have chosen a booklist that features among other conservative luminaries, David Frum (not once--but TWICE! Nobody needs that much David Frum.)

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It would be silly to claim that nothing good ever happens in Iraq. Hey, Saddam was finally deposed--and you know, he's a very bad man. Clinically insane, probably--but also very, very bad. Schools have been built, and order has been virtually restored inside the "Green Zone," which is where most reporters are allowed to go. (note that even this pollyannaish appraisal admits that reporters are "cocooned inside their hotel"--now why would that be, if their purpose for going to Iraq was to report on the news. I'm guessing it's not that the cocktails are really good.)

One point of interest: after waxing poetic about the open democratic discourse between interest groups, this author provides us with this gem:

The second reason for extending Americas military presence is political. The U.S. is acting as an arbiter among Iraqs various ethnic and religious communities and political factions. It is, in a sense, a traffic cop, giving Iraqis a green or red light when and if needed. It is important that the U.S. continue performing this role for the first year or two of the newly elected parliament and government.

If there's a true democratic discourse, why do "ethnic and religious communities" need an arbiter? Particularly a heavily armed arbiter?

Either they're getting along or they're not. I don't think anyone can rationally argue that pulling out of Iraq is a reasonable option for the US at this point. In my opinion, they're now committed to staying the course and keeping order while democracy is established, regardless of the cost.

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth re-evaluating the decision to go to war in the first place--which it's worth remembering was made because of WMDs, not regime change--and which has clearly proven far more costly than anyone thought, both monetarily and in terms of human life. And I don't think even Amir Taheri would deny that.