Jim, how's anybody supposed to reply to that unless they have a free hour or two?

Piece of cake! Just get laid off!

A few points (that don't really address your general point):

1. (not to speek for Tony, but) He expressed that he was against the administration's approach to conflict with Iraq. He never said he was against the war but now that it's going we have no choice to support it.

And I don't want to speak for Tony and/or misrepresent him, either. I was just throwing my impressions out there. For *me* (and that's just me) being mad about the process that got us to war while ultimately being for this particular war once underway (if that's a fair summary) is a bit puzzling under the circumstances. I guess that's based on my sense that the only real process that counted was the administration's very early decision to invade Iraq. All of the UN stuff was just window dressing, as is the new "coalition". So, if you agree with the goal, why get upset about the perfunctory process (except that it was it was a chance for some countries like France and Russia to try to make us look bad)?

I heard just a snip of a story from (this week's?) Time magazine (can't find it referenced on the Web) where W walks by a conference room sometime last year where Condoleeza Rice is meeting with staff. I guess W hears somebody mention Saddam and he sticks his head in the door and goes "Saddam? F*ck him! He's gone!" then continues down the hall.

2. I don't know why people keep saying that we are suffering heavy losses. Maybe in the video game era, 50 or so lost soldiers 10 days into a war is heavy losses, but do you have any idea how many people died EACH DAY in Vietnam?
Yeah.
.... Twice as many people died at that Great White concert.

And that was a sucky, avoidable thing, too.

I don't *think* that I was one of the people who said "heavy" casualties, but if I implied it, that was not my exact intent. You're right. In a serious, full-on war where both sides meet head-on you could expect to see much bigger casualties. And if it was generally considered to be a "Good War"(tm), the country in question might just suck it up and say "well, that's too bad but it had to be be done" with a single voice.

My point in citing current numbers of deaths is just to try to keep in mind that they are occurring and that they are different from the 2-day war that I think many Americans expected or that Americans may abide if this drags on and more citizens start questioning our plan or motives.

Oh, and 50 isn't much, except as compared to zero, or unless you're the mom of dad of a MIA, knowing that chances are that they are death #51, and who just joined up to be a teacher.

3. Suicide bombs and the like have never been effective against military targets. I really think that it's pointless to try to say the military is going to not accomplish their goals here.

Suicide bombs are effective insofar as they will make it more likely that troops will kill more people who are perceived to be a threat but who might not have been. That may not get much press here, but it will certainly be on the loudspeakers and TV screens in the Middle East

People said the same thing in Afghanistan - that we were not being effective and nothing was happening. Then 2 days later, we had control of every major city there.

In the lull during the build up, I guess I remember people saying that nothing was happening, being pessimistic. Even allowing for, what 3000?, civilian deaths and failures to trap/pursue/kill OBL and others, there were aspects of that campaign that will be taught in war colleges as "good" textbook examples, but I think that parallels to the current situation are limited. In Afghanistan we had convenient proxy armies to work work with and no dense, highly built-up cities of 4.8 million people to subdue.

Trust me, I am not certain about what it will take (how many troops, how many combatant casualties, how many civilian casualties, how much money) to capture all of the major cities and police and govern them until such time as democracy is declared or until we get tired and bail out.

For caution, though, I'll say/ask again just how much of Afghanistan the new government of Afghanistan controls: Kabul.

Some of the Iraqi expatriates who have been whispering in our ear "Invade! The people will welcome US troops!" for the past 10 years, well, they may not be Afghan warlords, but I think they clearly have their own political interests and are likely to be the ones sniping at US MPs in 2004.

If you want to argue that we won't be successful politically or diplomatically with the Arab world or with Iraq, then that is another topic altogether.

On the contrary, I think that, from a strategic standpoint the military and diplomatic are inextricably linked.

4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

Yes, if Iraqis just had Ogg support!!

Other than that, I think your post was very well writen.

Thanks. Well, I did volunteer to Mr. Fabris that if he wanted to change me from "veteran" to "interminable blowhard" I would take it with reasonable grace.

I listened again to that 38-minute Christopher Dickey interview from Fresh Air and, if you or anyone can abide Real Audio or WMP9, I really have to give it another plug (I e-mailed FA and asked why they can't just have plain MPEGs or something...).

Oh, and....

Iraq Quote for the Day: "Be professional, be polite,...but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

- Marine Corps major in Iraq