The Atlantic comes through with another excellent piece: The Fifty-First State. On war with Iraq, and its long-term consequences.

¶ 443 Posted at 12.05 AM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq | linkage )

I almost hate it when others speak my mind better than I can myself: The Lie Of The U.S. Military / Tough gritty American soldiers protect freedom of liberal S.F. columnist? Or the other way around?. Soldiers don't protect freedom. The best they can do is to protect property and people. Physical things. They do nothing to ensure the sanctity of more abstract notions such as liberty. There was a time when other powers wanted to invade this country and destroy our liberty. Even then, however, the military did not protect freedom. What they did do was make it possible for us to protect our own freedom. We ourselves, the citizens. On occasion, freedom may be protected by the police or a district attorney or a judge, but the greatest part of this protection comes from us living by the principles of our Constitution. And now the threat to freedom comes from within. American citizens will willingly give up their freedoms and those of their countrymen for the promise of security. Claiming that external forces will deny our liberty distracts us and makes it easier for internal forces to do the same. It doesn't matter if it is the Communists or John Ashcroft who denies my freedom to speak.

The notion of trading reduced freedom for security is treated as a necessary exchange, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that it is a zero sum system. The only credible argument I have seen for denying natural freedoms is laziness on the parts of those meant to protect us. They say it would be "too hard" to protect this country without maintaining classified dossiers on its citizens. They say that they need to be able to conduct wiretaps and searches without warrants are necessary tools to make them more "efficient." It is simple laziness, on the part of the government and on the part of your fellow citizens, who want a panacea for their fears (reinforced by the government's reckless and effectively useless handling of potential threats), but don't want to pay for more agents or more judges, or face the ever-so-slightly increased danger of a free society. And what then? As an engineer, I often attempt many solutions to a problem before finding the right one. As such, I am used to thinking about what happens when my chosen solution fails. Unfortunately nobody in our government seems to think that way. So when denying my freedoms fails to make us more secure, what happens? Do I get my freedoms back? Or do they demand even more from me, claiming this time it will be different? Somehow I expect the latter. Freedom and security are not mutually exclusive. Those who would deny you your freedoms are your enemies, and the enemies of this country, no matter what excuses they manufacture.

I have tried very hard to use phrases like "deny freedom" rather than "take away freedom" because freedom is an inalienable right. Others may make it impossible for us to exercise our freedom, but it exists independently of any actions they may take. To state that they can take it away gives them the power to do so. This has already happened in some areas, with many people erroneously believing that the government has the power to regulate your speech. This is partly based on a misapplication of this statement by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Schenck v. United States: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Freedom of speech does not apply here because you are on private property. The owner of the property has complete discretion over what is said, not the federal government. If the owner of the property gives me the permission to yell "fire," they cannot stop me. Suppose you have a dinner party. At some point, you shout "Fire!" and panic your guests. You may anger your friends, but it is your right. Thinking that the government can regulate that speech is a misunderstanding of the concept and makes the public conception of freedom subject to further erosion. Here is an interesting discussion going further into this issue. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but it sure sounds right.

...putting the "fury" in righteous fury since 2002...

¶ 519 Posted at 05.12 PM ⇒ No Comments ( linkage | politics | iraq )

After some discussion with mute, we both agreed that there is now no way for the United States to withdraw from Iraq. At this point, the least bad outcome is to win. That realization put me in a foul mood. Up to this point, I had held out hope that the situation was salvageable, that there was some way for it not to end badly. Now I have resigned myself there being no good options, only bad ones and worse ones. I realized that I've given up hope. That was the worst for me. I never give up. Anyone who's ever disagreed with me knows that. It's just not me. Now, though, I have given up, and it's terrible. I hate George Bush for making that happen. I hate him for taking my hope away.

¶ 520 Posted at 10.04 PM ⇒ No Comments ( me | politics | iraq )

As you must know by now, they have captured Saddam Hussein. Phew. I hope that eliminating him as a source of fear and inspiration will make progress much easier. Now they just have to track down Osama.

¶ 642 Posted at 10.17 AM ⇒ No Comments ( news | politics | iraq )

For what it's worth, I don't fault the Bush administration for not anticipating September 11. I have no reason to doubt the word of Richard Clarke or the Clinton staff members who said they strongly urged the Bush administration to investigate Al-Qaeda, but let's face it, nobody saw September 11th coming. I don't think anybody thought that big. It's hard to say whether it was practically preventable on Bush's timeline. They'd only been in office for 8 months. The government is a big ship to move. I think all this attention on what Bush could/should have done to prevent September 11th is wasted energy. What we need to focus on is what they've done since then. Actually, I'm a little surprised that the Bush administration has so strongly asserted that they did everything they could have. It's just keeping the story alive. The conspiracy theorist in me says that's intentional to distract from the mistakes made since then, but I don't believe that. So, to recap, then:

• USA PATRIOT Act: Mostly Bad.
• Invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban: Good.
• Department of Homeland Security: I'm on the fence.
• Abandoning Afghanistan and invading Iraq: Mostly Bad.
• Continuing to support oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan: Terrible.

The average US citizen now thinks that they were misled about the invasion of Iraq. The average US citizen apparently gives George W. Bush strong marks for "leadership" in the "war on terror," even though they now seem to think they were deceived about Iraq. I don't get it. On a national security level, I don't care much about what Bush did before September 11th. I'm willing to give him a bye even if it turns out mistakes were made. But from where I sit, it looks like everything after Afghanistan is just throwing fuel on the fire.

¶ 707 Posted at 11.47 AM ⇒ No Comments ( politics | iraq )

When I listened to George W. Bush's speech on Tuesday, I was reminded of a science fiction short story that I didn't read once. As I recall, the plot was about a plot by the military/industrial complex to revive public support (and thus funding) for the space program. They send an astronaut into space, but there is a terrible accident, and he is stranded. They appeal to the public and make a crash effort to put together vehicles to rescue him. Alas, they arrive tragically late, but hey, look at all this neat kit they have now!

That's kind-of-like-but-different-from the way I feel about Iraq now. Bush goes on and on about defending the decision to invade, but, aside from justifying his removal from office, that doesn't really matter anymore. We're there. It's sunk cost at this point; what we have to look for is ways to maximize the outcome given our present situation. If we don't leave Iraq, we'll be worse off, but not as badly off as we would be if we did leave Iraq. There's no way out except through. It's the least bad of our available options. I didn't agree with the decision to invade (der), but I can't agree with a decision to bail out, either. Of course, that's easy to say since I'm not in the military and the draft isn't in effect, but take it for what it's worth.

¶ 714 Posted at 01.52 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq | politics )

You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time: Majority of Americans now believe Iraq war was a mistake. Furthermore (and more importantly), a majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism. Let's hope that translates at the polls in November.

¶ 799 Posted at 07.57 AM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

I suspect the national perspective on the war in Iraq would be considerably different if Americans were made aware what it really cost, in terms understandable to the average person, since the total numbers are so large as to defy proper comprehension. That's what the Cost of War web site is. So far, the war in Iraq has cost an average of $467 per person. It's actually higher than that since you probably make significantly more than the US average personal income of about $31,000. We already know the benefits were exaggerated. Next time someone tells you the war was worth it, make sure they know all the costs.

¶ 876 Posted at 02.36 PM ⇒ No Comments ( politics | iraq )

I never agreed with the Iraq invasion, but if John Kerry truly thought it was the right thing to do, this is what he should have said about it in the debate:

The Bush campaign has been insistent about calling me a "flip-flopper" on the war in Iraq. They claim that I've changed my mind about the war to fit public opinion. They are right that I've changed my mind, but about this President, not the war. The President has said that I saw the same intelligence that he did. He's half right. I read the report that said that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes for producing nuclear materials. I did not see the report that said those tubes had another purpose, which the President did see. I read the report that said that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Nigeria. I did not see the report that said that was a fabrication, which the President did see. I read the report that said that there were contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaeda. I did not see the reports that said that those contacts amounted to nothing and Iraq had no role in the attacks on the United States. I saw the intelligence they used to justify this war, but they kept hidden the intelligence that undermined it. I voted for the authorization for this war because I trusted that this President was being honest and would use that authority wisely. Unfortunately, that trust was misplaced. This President knew there were flaws the case he presented. This President only made a token effort to avoid a war. This President rushed to war with too little planning and too few troops, resulting in the grim headlines we see every day. Yes, I voted to authorize the invasion, but I didn't realize we were giving such power to someone who would use it so poorly.

As an aside, it's kind of fun writing a fake speech. The flow and cadence are different and more important. It's kind of cool.

¶ 905 Posted at 10.12 AM ⇒ No Comments ( politics | iraq )

If it is disrespectful to the troops of Kerry to question the Iraq war, what was it when Bush invited attacks on those same troops when he said, "Bring it on!"

¶ 915 Posted at 11.04 AM ⇒ No Comments ( politics | iraq )

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll indicates that a majority of Americans (56%) now think that the invasion of and subsequent war in Iraq were not worth the cost in lives and money. A substantial number of people have shifted over the last two years.

I want to find these people and smack them silly. What the hell were you expecting would happen? How does this quagmire come as a surprise to you? You probably think I shouldn't be mad because people are seeing the light, but I don't really think they're seeing the light. This is one bad decision that they're realizing was bad, but I seriously doubt they're realizing their whole decision-making process is wrong.

They might come around on this one issue, but the next time there's some serious decision to be made, they're going to make the same mistake again. They're ignorant of the world. They confuse patriotism with nationalism. They're willing to trust politicians who say things that are patently false if they're repeated often enough. They think decisiveness is a virtue and hesitation a sin. None of that has changed. People aren't learning, they're becoming cautious of war, and those are two entirely different things.

If, five years from now, there's a legitimate war that needs to be fought, these people will oppose it because they don't understand anything beyond the superficial. It's better than them denying reality, but I can't take much comfort from people belatedly realizing what was obvious 2 years ago. I can't take much comfort from the realization that only actual disaster will make these people realize they were wrong, and that they will never actually understand how and why they were wrong. So they'll keep on making bad decisions over and over, except they'll be different bad decisions. And they'll drag the rest of us along with them, until we finally evolve and get on the spaceships out of here.

¶ 999 Posted at 12.19 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq | stupid people )

According to the Christian Science Monitor, United States soldiers are re-enlisting in surprising numbers.

¶ 1079 Posted at 04.58 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

There are those who believe that we invaded Iraq to secure its oil. These people may be right, but they may be wrong. It doesn't matter, because even if we didn't invade Iraq to secure its oil, we are still there because of oil, no matter whom you believe. Don't believe me? We attacked Iraq in 2003 because (pick any or all):

• We wanted their oil.
• Saddam Hussein was an oppressive, brutal dictator
• They had weapons of mass destruction
• They supported Al-Qaeda
• They were a threat to Saudi Arabia

The first one's easy. Go straight to oil; do not pass GO or collect $200(,000,000,000).

Saddam Hussein was clearly a terrible man. There appears to be a strong correlation between strong economies and free societies. More interestingly, there appears to be a strong correlation between strong economies and a lack of natural resources. Correlation is not causation, but it makes a lot of sense. Natural resources can be easily controlled by a small group of people, and it's wealth that literally comes out of the ground, as opposed to the wealth produced by trade, manufacturing, and services, which is greatest in free societies. Natural resources often support tyrannies. Witness Iran, the Republic of Congo (back when it was Zaire), Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. Saddam Hussein would have been a despot regardless, but controlling the oil enabled him to strengthen his grip even more.

We know they had weapons of mass destruction at some point. Of course, those programs aren't free. How did Iraq pay for the investment in research and capital? Oil money. Why would they be useful? For attacking or intimidating neighboring countries in advancement of the goals of Arab nationalism and Iraqi expansionism. Oh, and you can take their oil, too.

Then there's Al-Qaeda. We now know that there was no meaningful connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but Al-Qaeda is still relevant. The roots of that organization are in the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but Al-Qaeda only formed in the early 1990s due to Osama bin Laden's outrage at infidel troops being stationed in the holy land of Islam. Those infidels? US troops. The holy land? Saudi Arabia (I smell oil...). He was also strongly opposed to the Saudi government itself, which we have helped to keep in power for decades.

US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War because Iraq was considered a threat. Why do we care about Saudi Arabia? Because they are the major producer of oil (there's that word again). That's the same reason the Iraqis would consider invading. We attacked Iraq in 1991 because they invaded Kuwait. Why did they invade Kuwait? Because Iraq and Kuwait had a dispute over whether Kuwait was illegally tapping Iraqi oil fields. It was also because Iraq's port facilities had been destroyed in the Iran-Iraq War, not to mention their substantial debts arising from the same war.

The Iran-Iraq War had numerous causes. Mesopotamia has been a mess for basically all of recorded history. However, there were certain more immediate issues. One was Saddam Hussein's desire to fully control the Shatt al-Arab waterway, an important shipping channel for oil exports from both Iraq and Iran (hello, oil). The Iranian Revolution had occurred the previous year, presenting Hussein with an opportunity, as the revolution had alienated the west, as well as inspiring fear that the revolution would spread to the Shi'a majority in Iraq. The United States supported Iraq in the war as part of a strategy to counter-balance the dangerous revolutionaries in Iran, but also sold weapons to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra Affair. These actions certainly prolonged the war. Still, that's all geo-political, right? There's no oil there...

Except there is. The Iranian Revolution was a revolution against the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, whose regime was corrupt, autocratic, un-Islamic, and pro-Western. The Shah had been returned to power in 1953 as part of an Anglo-American operation to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh. There were two primary reasons for this: the first was because of Mossadegh's socialist rhetoric and Iran's position on the border of the Soviet Union. The second? The Iranian government nationalized the oil-producing assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, due to ongoing disputes over the distribution of royalties (from... oil).

So... where does that leave us? We wanted the oil directly. We wanted to secure the alleged weapons of mass destruction that were financed with oil money. We wanted to hit an alleged ally of a terrorist group formed in response to our actions to protect our oil supply. This threat came from a nation whose fortunes were tied to and often driven by oil. Any way you slice it, no matter who you believe on the Iraq War, our involvement is inextricably intertwined with petroleum. It's all in Wikipedia; you can see for yourself. We only care about the area today (besides Israel) because of oil. These are essential facts for people to understand. Our oil addiction kills.

¶ 1233 Posted at 01.04 PM ⇒ No Comments ( terrorism | issues | iraq )

I can't believe I forgot a biggie in my explanation of the roots of the Iraq War. We send money to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries for oil. The Saudi government supports the extremist Wahhabi school of Islam, sponsoring religious schools that spread this brand of militant fundamentalism throughout the Middle East, including in Afghanistan, creating an environment where terrorist organizations flourish. Numerous wealthy individuals in the Middle East also give money to Al Qaeda, with their source of income frequently being oil or oil-related, such as Osama bin Laden's inherited fortune from construction.

¶ 1235 Posted at 01.07 PM ⇒ No Comments ( terrorism | issues | iraq )

A fundamental tragedy of the Iraq War is that the fundamental idea was a good one. A democratic, stable government in the heart of the Arab world would have undercut terrorists like Osama bin Laden. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," said John F. Kennedy. Osama bin Laden and his ilk are definitely a violent revolution, as one of their key goals is the overthrow of the current governments of many Arab states.

Of course, Al Qaeda seeks a re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate in the Muslim world, so it can hardly be said that democracies would satisfy them. Nor do we wish to satisfy them 1 . What establishing a free society would do is to cut off their oxygen supply. It would help to dissipate the oppression and helplessness that foster the anger that creates a steady supply of recruits.

What was completely wrong was how the creation of such a democracy was attempted. The doctrine of pre-emption, lack of a UN mandate, the missing WMDs, Guantanamo Bay, the alleged-but-untrue links to September 11, Abu Ghraib, the self-serving policies of the CPA, and American arrogance in general severely crippled and possibly doomed the enterprise from the start. Rather than cutting off the flow of recruits, the United States instead turned a stream into a river. The Arab world cannot believe that America is sincere in the goal of fostering democracy and protecting human rights, and, having seen the Bush administration at work for 5 years, I don't blame them.

My worry is the lesson Americans will learn from Iraq is isolationism. The real lesson is that how you do something matters just as much or more as what you do. When you claim to be doing something for someone else's own good, you must be purer than pure. Anything that you do that makes the intended beneficiaries of your efforts question your sincerity will undermine your efforts. You cannot force a free society into being, you can only create the conditions that make one possible. If one reserves the right to do evil things 2 , endlessly repeating the equivalent of "trust me" will not have the intended effect. The Iraq mission cannot succeed without the cooperation of the Iraqis, but we have made it hard for them to do so. The same is true to varying degrees in the Arab world; we preach freedom, but support oppression in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other nations. We may have unmatched military power, but no amount of military power can change how people think and behave; the fall of the USSR 3 ought to be proof enough of that.

Along those lines, Peter Beinart, editor at large for the New Republic, makes a convincing case that Cold War liberalism is due for a resurrection in a NY Times Magazine article. Some choice quotes:

Americans may fight evil, they argued, but that does not make us inherently good. And paradoxically, that very recognition makes national greatness possible. Knowing that we, too, can be corrupted by power, we seek the constraints that empires refuse. And knowing that democracy is something we pursue rather than something we embody, we advance it not merely by exhorting others but by battling the evil in ourselves. The irony of American exceptionalism is that by acknowledging our common fallibility, we inspire the world.

If cold-war conservatives worried that Americans no longer saw their own virtue, cold-war liberals worried that Americans saw only their virtue.

Rather, they should cultivate enough self-doubt to ensure that unlike the Communists', their idealism never degenerated into fanaticism.

America can be the greatest nation on earth, as long as Americans remember that they are inherently no better than anyone else.

Beinart expands on these ideas in an upcoming book, which is now on my to-read list.

¶ 1278 Posted at 03.23 AM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

I suggest a simple answer to the question of when to leave Iraq: when the Iraqis want us to. At least once every year and/or parliamentary election, there should be a referendum where Iraqis can simply check "Yes" or "No" to a continued American military presence. After the first election where a majority 1 of Iraqis vote "Yes," United States forces will commence a withdrawal ending some fixed amount of time after the election 2 . This should be a loudly and frequently stated commitment.

The advantages of this policy are numerous. First of all, from a moral perspective, it inches us back to the high ground. The United States is not an imperial power. Self-determination is a right we recognize that all peoples have, be they Kosovar Albanians or Soviet Tajiks 3 .

Secondly, it would subdue 4 the controversy domestically about an exit strategy. It would also put pressure on us to get things right, as it may be the Iraqis ask us to leave before we think is best. It would also give us a face-saving way to get out without the country being fully stabilized.

Finally, and most importantly, it would send a clear message to Iraqis that they are in charge. Instead of focusing on what they dislike about the American presence, it would make them think about what we do to help them. It's easy to rage against something you cannot control, but once ordinary Iraqis have to deal with the possibility that they could push out the one force preventing all-out civil war, I expect that their attitudes towards the United States would ease up. It gives them the (self-)respect they deserve as free people, something they don't have today.

Our current Iraq occupation is not accountable to the people it supposedly helps most. Accountability is the best way to ensure success, as it gives them a stake and keeps us honest 5 . Giving the Iraqis the choice is the best way of defining an exit, saving face, and aligning the interests of ordinary Iraqis with ours, and vice versa.

¶ 1287 Posted at 11.39 AM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

In the spring of 2003, Iran made an indirect overture to the United States to discuss everything from nuclear weapons to Israel. The last 3 years make clear what the US response was. Oops. The Washington Post has the story, including some weak "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" spin from Condoleeza Rice.

¶ 1299 Posted at 05.28 PM ⇒ No Comments ( issues | iraq )

I understand why people are tired of squabbling about what led to the Iraq War. We're there now, and even if we decided to leave today, withdrawal would be a long and complicated process. Nevertheless, it's important to keep underlying the mistakes that resulted in the invasion for one simple reason: people haven't learned. A majority of Americans now say the war was a mistake, but I don't believe they fully understand how.

The mistakes weren't honest, inevitable human error. Rather, they were a result of specific choices made by George W. Bush et al. They chose a course of action and only then determined a rationale. They ignored contradictory evidence and pumped up supporting evidence. They failed to plan for the post-war occupation out of a combination of hubris and an unwillingness to confront the true costs. They advocated an immoral and dangerous doctrine of preemptive action. They fed American fears of terrorism, fostering yet more of the fear that is the aim of terrorism, and then manipulated those fears to achieve their political ends.

A majority of Americans and many former war supporters have reached the conclusion that the Iraq War was a mistake. I don't think they have recognized the above choices as the key leadership failures that resulted in the war, however. I am worried that many people are taking superficial, incorrect lessons 1 . Until they recognize the deep flaws in the process that got us there, though, we will make the same mistake again. Almost as bad, or perhaps worse, they may prevent us from military action when it's the right thing to do, such as in Afghanistan in 2001.

It's important to understand exactly what got us into this mess, because the fundamental problem is one of process, not of results. If you continue to apply a broken process to the world, you'll continue to make terrible mistakes. Replacing one broken process with another is no better. That's why we need to keep revisiting the key issues.

¶ 1308 Posted at 03.08 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

This post by Zack Exley articulates exactly what is wrong with the overuse of the "we're in a war" excuse constantly used by the Bush administration. Al Qaeda can't hurt us in any meaningful way. They are not the USSR. They are not Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan. They're not even Canada. And yet, we have allowed our government to do things we never allowed during World War II and the Cold War. There's something very wrong with that, and I'm glad to see someone with at least a little influence saying the right things.

¶ 1341 Posted at 03.12 PM ⇒ No Comments ( issues | iraq )

I don't watch "The Daily Show" regularly anymore, but I did catch the episode with Aasif Mandvi responding to the "opportunity" in the Middle East right now. Check it out. I'm amazed that he could keep a straight face the whole way through. Watch it all the way through; the September 11th zinger is a killer.

¶ 1351 Posted at 02.59 PM ⇒ No Comments ( issues | iraq | funny )

Can't we just invade it again?

¶ 1519 Posted at 01.09 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

One of the key mistakes that George W. Bush made in invading Iraq was to deploy too few troops. This will remain true even if Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy tomorrow. Why? Because we've been held in at best a stalemate for four years. Once you show that someone can hold you off for four years, it doesn't take much to imagine being able to hold you off for longer. Other potential enemies will see what's happened and think, "If we could just fight a little harder and a little longer than the Iraqis did, we can beat them."

That's why you need overwhelming force. It's not about winning, but winning in a way that makes it inconceivable that you could have lost. Even if 150,000 troops were enough, as Tommy Franks claimed, and as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki disputed, it was definitely not enough to win the way we won in the first Iraq War, when there were nearly 1 million troops deployed just to reconquer Kuwait.

For the United States to maintain the global perception of being a superpower, it is simply not enough to win. The United States must make winning look easy. We must make it seem futile to resist. No matter what happens now, it's too late for that. The question of opposing the United States militarily is now a question of weighing costs and benefits, rather than one to be dismissed immediately as ludicrous.

Of course, the question of winning in Iraq is now settled: we can't. Even if Americans had the political will to continue, which they don't, we cannot muster the forces we now know are necessary. In theory, we could fix Iraq with, say, 550,000 soldiers in the country1. That force could make it happen. The problem is that neither the United States nor any other member of the dwindling "coalition of the willing" has such numbers available. At best US troops are delaying the inevitable. Iraq is going to collapse, it's just a question of whether it's now or two years from now.

¶ 1568 Posted at 01.11 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )

Hmmm... it kind of seems like the surge in Iraq is making a significant difference. I really don't know what to think now.

¶ 1629 Posted at 05.16 PM ⇒ No Comments ( iraq )