Ok, let's say everything is successful. Iraq becomes a haven for peace. The U.S. draws down to 10 troops and Bush gives out free ice cream to everyone under 95. People like Mr. Kinsey will still say everything is terrible because there was once a left handed soldier withing 3,000,000 miles of the Persian Gulf. I mean, come on, why is it so difficult to give credit where credit is due in a very complicated situation? Partisanship? Nah, because we know Mr. Kinsey and the rest are just as incensed that we STILL have troops over there, even though we were promised by the President that they were temporary and would be gone by the end of his second term. Of course I refer to the beloved Bill and his troop deployment in Bosnia/Herzgovena. Where's the outrage?

As a proud member of the armed forces I think you are over-reacting to Kinsey's post. Unfortunately in debating rather than actually discussing the issues and moving forward we tend to argue over definitions. The surge has been a tactical and operational success, the iraqi streets are more peaceful, you are correct that is a fact. Strategically it is hard to evaluate one way or another if Iraq is success. You are correct there are still troops in the Balkans...but they are not being blown up by IEDs, you have more chance being killed there as a soldier by a training accident than combat. The point of the surge stragegically is to stablize Iraq so it can be self-sufficient, throughout the past 6-8 months, legislative and diplomatic issues that should have been negotiated in the Iraqi parliament like oil sharing revenues and the amount of power local governors should have, let alone "who controls Kirkuk" have not been addressed. Meanwhile the surge has corresponded exactly with the Madhi army cease fire (which has been extended thank god, it means my friends will be safer.) Six months from now when the cease fire is called off and there are only 100,000 troops will the conditions be such that Bagdhad will still be safer? If Bagdhad descends into chaos then yes, the surge failed strategically. Soldiers will not be the ones who fail, they dont make strategy, the civilian control of the military with leading generals control strategy. (Dont get me started on diplomatic corps and the Iraqi parliament.) I don't think that my doubts undermines my pride in General Petraeus, and my belief that my collegues and friends are the best soldiers in the world and performing above expectation. Please understand that this is real and not about Bill v. George, Republican v. Democrat. Someone who expresses doubts about the surge is not unpatriotic or being blindly partisan.

The outrage over Bosnia? That's, uh, the war where there were zero U.S. combat casualties? How delusional are you? Oh, right you are the guy who can use Iraq and "haven for peace" in the same sentence without his head exploding.

Never mind.

In general, part and parcel with the flag waving and bible thumping support of the war, there has been a constant refrain from "both" sides of the American rhetoric. You use it a lot more calmly than most, honestly it seems to me, but somewhere along the way, lots and lots of people say just what you said, "my belief that my colleagues and friends are the best soldiers in the world."

I don't understand this point. First; how would anybody know such a thing? One way would be for a particular soldier to fight in every army in the world and form a basis for comparison. Another would be if all the countries in the world with armies gathered together someplace and fought, one at a time, a common enemy. Then everybody could be graded by the emperor of war and whoever won could go home until the next war-off. Last year's winner would get a first round bye each following year.

This is much like saying, "my country (pick one; England, Mexico, Uzbekistan) is the greatest country in the world. How would anybody know? You'd have to be a citizen of each and every one before you could decide. That actually sounds like a job I'd like, but never mind.

Do we have the best technology in the world? Most of the time, yes. The best weapons? Some of the time. The most oil? You bet. Maybe that's what makes a country the greatest; using the most natural resources.

This is not to say that I don't hope your friends stay safe and return home soon; next January 31 would be good. It is also to say that the more than 150,000 (at least) Iraqi dead should merit some mention, along with the 4.5 million displaced, many of whom can't return home because they will be tortured or killed. I hope you can agree that it would be wonderful if America had the best refugee net in the world, but I don't think anybody thinks that.