In today's Videos on Iraq War News

Army Iraq War Verteran/Soldier beaten at McCarran Airport

FOX ATTACKS: Iran

Dennis Kucinich - PBS, News Hour

More US citizens think Iraq war 'unwinnable'

A NEW poll published in the US shows growing pessimism among Americans about the Iraq war with only 28 per cent saying the US will probably or definitely win the conflict.

The USA Today/Gallup Poll result was the lowest since the question was first asked in September 2005 and down from 35 per cent in December. Some 46 per cent said they did not think the war could be won. Moreover, 59 per cent now say the war was a mistake, the same as September 2005 and the highest level in the 58 times the question has been asked since the war started in March 2003. Six in 10 supported funding additional US troops to Iraq, while 52 per cent were against revoking the war authority given to Mr Bush by Congress in 2002.

But 60 per cent said Congress should set a timetable for withdrawing all US troops by the end of next year, while 77 per cent said they supported requiring soldiers to come home if Iraq's leaders fail to meet promises to reduce violence. Another 76 per cent support requiring that US troops returning from Iraq to stay in the US for at least a year before being re-deployed to the war-torn country.

A measure to cap troop levels in Iraq won support of 54 per cent of those surveyed. Mr Bush's popularity remained low, with only 33 per cent approving of his performance while 63 per cent disapproved.

Newark pals both enlisted for Iraq war

They grew up together, finished high school together and in 2004 fulfilled a longtime dream of becoming soldiers in the Army despite daily reports of casualties in Iraq.

Justin Smith and Benjamin Harrison, brothers in spirit if not by birth, were undaunted by the fact they likely would

serve in one of the most dangerous places on Earth for military and civilians alike. Instead, it was the end of a long wait to become soldiers.

"I never thought twice about it," Harrison, a cavalry mechanic with the 4th Infantry Division, wrote in an e-mail from Iraq.

He recalled doing military-style one-handed pushups with Smith when they were teenagers. "The Army is not for everyone, but for Justin and me it was, I think, the best thing we ever did."

After years of friendship, the two men are as close as any two siblings could be even though they were separated once they enlisted.

"Justin is my best friend and always will be," Harrison wrote.

The two met in the seventh grade as next-door neighbors in a Newark apartment complex.

Smith's parents, Todd and Susan, raised Harrison like a son after his mother moved to Arizona. His father had left long before.

The Smiths saw him through his high school years until he graduated in June 2004 with their son from Crossroads High. Afterward, Harrison and Smith married their teenage sweethearts, who are sisters.

Then they headed straight for the Army recruiting office in Fremont, where 45 others have signed up since October 2004.

"It was pretty scary," said

Advertisement
Click to learn more...

Todd Smith of his son's determination to join the Army despite the war in Iraq. Smith's parents tried to persuade him to work with computers or machines, something less dangerous than the infantry. "But he's not that way. He wanted to see action," they said.

Today the 21-year old is training Iraqi soldiers as a specialist in the Alpha Company of the 4th Infantry Division.

Even though he was determined since boyhood to join the Army, Smith's actual departure to Iraq in 2005 was devastating, said his wife, Sarah.

"I didn't move, didn't eat. I was sure it was the last time I would see him," she recalled recently.

Smith and Harrison were supposed to enlist together, but Smith's application was delayed. That meant Harrison went first. He has been in Iraq for more than a year, making sure soldiers have trustworthy vehicles, which, as with so many elements in a war zone, their lives depend on.

Harrison said his main job is to "make sure the vehicles the guys are driving every day for long periods of time are in perfect running order."

"One of the biggest challenges is leaving your family," wrote Harrison, now the father of a 6-month-old girl. But being deployed, "that's the really hard part."

By Angela Woodall, STAFF WRITER

Iraq Veteran Speaks Out On War Crimes

Testimony from a former U.S. Army Ranger Jessie Macbeth, a Former Army Ranger and Iraq War Veteran Tells All This 20 minute interview will change how you view the U.S. occupation of Iraq forever. I cannot possibly recommend this more highly. An Iraq war veteran tells of atrocities he and other fellow-soldiers committed reguarly while in Iraq. I have never seen this level of honesty from a U.S. soldier who directly participated in the slaughtering of Iraqis. Excerpts: "When we were doing the night raids in the houses, we would pull people out and have them all on their knees and zip-tied. We would ask the man of the house questions. If he didn't answer the way we liked, we would shoot his youngest kid in the head. We would keep going, this was our interrogation. He could be innocent. He could be just an average Joe trying to support his family. If he didn't give us a satisfactory answer, we'd start killing off his family until he told us something. If he didn't know anything, I guess he was SOL." and "For not speaking out, I feel like I'm betraying my battle-buddies that died." Watch the video here. Produced by Pepperspray Productions

U.S. lockdown after Afghan riot - May 29, 2006

CNN.com - U.S. lockdown after Afghan riot - May 29, 2006: "KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- The U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan's capital is under lockdown after angry locals took to the streets when an American truck ran into pedestrians.

One person was killed and six others were injured in Kabul on Monday when a truck in an American military convoy lost its brakes and crashed into a crowd of bystanders."

Two of those injured are in critical condition, the U.S. military said.

Some angry Afghans took to the streets after the crash, throwing rocks and overturning Afghan police cars.

One person was killed when firing broke out during the protests, Reuters reported a security official as saying.

It was not immediately clear who opened fire. A Reuters reporter at the scene saw one man shot dead and several wounded people being taken away.

Witnesses said some protesters had been killed after police intervened and forced protesters to scatter, according to Reuters.

"There are casualties, killed and wounded," said a security official who declined to be identified.

No American troops are allowed to leave the base.

The United States has 23,000 troops in Afghanistan, while a NATO-led peacekeeping force has more than 9,000 troops in the nation.

Iraq war puts US coffers under siege - World - theage.com.au

Iraq war puts US coffers under siege - World - theage.com.au: "AMERICA'S annual war expenditure in Iraq has nearly doubled since the US invasion as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.

The number of US lives lost has fallen this year but the financial cost continues to climb, from $US48 billion ($A64.5 billion) in 2003 to an anticipated $US94 billion this year, according to the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $US61 billion a year that the US spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's 'shock and awe' has long faded but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts long-avoided equipment repair and rebuilding costs and unexpected procurement costs."

"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many (heavily) armoured vehicles … nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," US Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The issue will be hotly debated next week when the Senate takes up a record $US106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $US72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House of Representatives passed a $US92 billion version of the bill last month that included $US68 billion in war funding. That is on top of $US50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Senate Democrats say that they will vote for the measure, but the debate will offer war opponents ample opportunity to question the Bush Administration's funding priorities.

Defence officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs. At roughly $US15 billion, personnel costs will drop 14 per cent this year. But the cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting materiel has exploded.

In the first year of the invasion, such costs totalled $US2.4 billion. This year, they will hit $US26 billion and could go as high as $US30 billion, said Steven Kosiak, from the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Gary Motsek, director of support operations at the Army Materiel Command, said of the helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers and small arms being used: "We're working them to death."

In 2001, the army's depots logged 11 million labour hours. This year it will total 24 million.

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be permanently damaged by failed U.S. planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion even if he survives calls for his resignation from seven former military commanders, defense analysts said.

The retired generals, who made their views public in interviews and essays over the past month, are adding to criticism from Democrats and some Republicans over what they say was Rumsfeld's failure to anticipate the instability in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled three years ago.

Rumsfeld's ability to achieve his broader goals at the Pentagon, such as completing the transformation of the U.S. military from the Cold War period to the post-Sept. 11 era, will be compromised by the damage Iraq has done to his reputation, according to Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia, and other military experts.

``Any time a war goes wrong on a defense secretary's watch, not only does history judge them poorly but their ability to get anything done is gravely damaged,'' said Thompson.

President George W. Bush and other supporters of Rumsfeld are trying to put a lid on the mounting criticism. Bush on April 14 issued a statement saying Rumsfeld has his ``full support and deepest appreciation.'' Retired Air Force General Richard Myers, who served as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Rumsfeld, yesterday called the criticism from some of his former colleagues ``inappropriate.''

Already Weakened

The effort to quell Rumsfeld's critics may be too late, said Lawrence J. Korb, a defense official in the Reagan administration, and other military analysts.

``He's already been weakened by the failures in Iraq,'' said Korb, now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a policy research group in Washington. ``He can't possibly make a controversial decision'' without risking an uproar, Korb said.

Rumsfeld, 73, has become a target of criticism in large part because he demanded and won from Bush the authority to run the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraqi society after American forces removed Hussein from power in 2003. Rumsfeld insisted that the effort could be accomplished with a U.S. commitment numbering no more than about 150,000 troops, even though some, such as then- Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, said a force more than three times that might be needed.

Myers said senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon ``inappropriately criticized'' Shinseki ``for speaking out.'' He didn't identify those leaders leadership, but Shinseki's assertion was challenged publicly by both Rumsfeld and his top deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld named Shinseki's replacement more than a year before the general was set to leave the Pentagon.

Planning

Critics say Rumsfeld's war plan failed to prepare for the postwar occupation of Iraq and mistakenly assumed that American troops would be welcomed as liberators after Hussein's fall.

Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia said Bush may be the real target of Rumsfeld's critics.

``A lot of this focus on an individual is a way of, maybe, criticizing the president,'' Allen said yesterday on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' program.

While Rumsfeld and Bush have pointed to signs of progress in Iraq, such as two parliamentary elections and a constitutional referendum, U.S. forces for years have battled a relentless Iraqi insurgency that has dogged political, economic and military progress in Iraq.

Record

``The near-real-time history being written hasn't been particularly kind to Rumsfeld,'' said Andrew Krepinevich, director of the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington and a retired Army lieutenant colonel.

Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the conflict, which has claimed the lives of 2,373 U.S. military personnel as of April 14. A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll last week found 58 percent of U.S. adults don't think the Iraq war was worth it. Public dissatisfaction with the war has been a large factor in pushing Bush's approval rating to a near-record low and may threaten Republican control of Congress in the November elections, the poll found.

Retired General Wesley Clark, a Democratic candidate for president in 2004, on Saturday joined six other former generals in urging Rumsfeld to resign. The others are Army Major General Charles Swannack, Army Major General John Riggs, Army Major General John Batiste, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni and Army Major General Paul Eaton.

Presidential Praise

They contend Rumsfeld mismanaged the military's post- invasion operations and ignored the advice of field commanders. Swannack, Batiste and Eaton all served in the Iraq war.

Eaton first made his views public in an article in the New York Times last month. In an April 10 interview, Eaton said he's gotten ``a lot of feedback and all of it has been positive'' from active and retired Army personnel, ranging in rank from sergeants to generals.

Rumsfeld, in an April 13 interview with Al-Arabiya Television, said he intended to stay in the job as long as Bush wants him there. The critics are just a few among the ``thousands and thousands of admirals and generals,'' he said.

Bush, in his statement last week, said Rumsfeld's ``energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period.'' By contrast, when Bush was asked earlier this month about Treasury Secretary John Snow's future, the president said only that Snow ``is doing a good job.''

Rumsfeld's Defenders

Several ex-generals have come to Rumsfeld's defense.

Myers, who served as the nation's top military leader from October 2001 until last September, said Rumsfeld gave his commanders ``tremendous access'' and allowed them to present their arguments about strategy and tactics. Myers spoke on ABC's ``This Week'' program.

Retired Marine Corps General Michael DeLong, writing on the opinion page of the New York Times yesterday, said that while Rumsfeld wasn't easily swayed by his military commanders, he never took tactical control away from them.

Criticism from some former commanders may stem from Rumsfeld's efforts to transform the military, four other former generals wrote in today's Wall Street Journal. Rumsfeld's critics, preferring conventional weapons, didn't support his plans to make the military lighter and more mobile, the generals wrote. The criticism confuses U.S. troops and motivates the country's enemies, they said.

Options

Bush is known for his loyalty to advisers and resistance to pressure from critics. He may also be reluctant to make a change because any Senate confirmation hearing for a successor would inevitably become a high-profile debate about the war's course.

Replacing Rumsfeld also may be difficult because he's a political mentor to Vice President Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld resigned from Congress in 1969 to join President Richard Nixon's administration as director of an antipoverty agency. While there he hired Cheney, who has been a key ally ever since.

In the past ``Rumsfeld was a buffer between the president and public criticism and staying behind him was a sign of Bush's strength,'' Thompson said. ``Now Rumsfeld is becoming the cause of the criticism and standing behind him could be interpreted as a sign of weakness.''

Thompson and the other analysts said political pressure from Republicans preparing to face voters in congressional races ultimately may push Rumsfeld aside.

``Rumsfeld will have been so weakened by this process that as the election approaches the White House will signal that his resignation wouldn't be unwelcome,'' Thompson said.

The achievement of some benchmark of progress in Iraq, such as the formation of a new government, might give Rumsfeld the opportunity to leave the Pentagon on his terms, Korb said. ``That would be one way for an out,'' he said.

I supported the war in Iraq, but I've had a change of mind

Chron.com | I supported the war in Iraq, but I've had a change of mind: "SEVEN weeks ago, I published my case against the Iraq war. I wrote that although I had originally advocated military intervention in Iraq, and had even signed a letter to that effect shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I had since changed my mind.

But apparently this kind of honest acknowledgment is verboten. In the weeks since my book came out, I've been challenged, attacked and vilified from both ends of the ideological spectrum. From the right, columnist Charles Krauthammer has accused me of being an opportunistic traitor to the neoconservative cause — and a coward to boot. From the left, I've been told that I have 'blood on my hands' for having initially favored toppling Saddam Hussein and that my 'apology' won't be accepted."

In our ever-more-polarized political debate, it appears that it is now wrong to ever change your mind, even if empirical evidence from the real world suggests you ought to. I find this a strange and disturbing conclusion.

For the record, I did change my mind, but in the year preceding the war — not after the invasion. In 2002, I told the London Times that "the use of military power to push (Iraqi democracy) forward is a big roll of the dice. We may not win on this one." On the first anniversary of 9/11, I argued in The Washington Post that we should invade Iraq only with approval from the U.N. Security Council, and in December of that year, I wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal warning that the project of democratizing Iraq and the Mideast might come to look like empire and that it violated the conservative principle of prudence.

But when my political shift occurred is not important: Even if it had come a year or two later, it would still not have represented a cowardly retreat or an apologia, but a realistic, intellectually honest willingness to face the new facts of the situation.

In my view, no one should be required to apologize for having supported intervention in Iraq before the war. There were important competing moral goods on both sides of the argument, something that many on the left still refuse to recognize. The United Nations in 1999 declared that all nations have a positive "duty to protect, promote and implement" human rights, arguing in effect that the world's powerful countries are complicit in human rights abuses if they don't use their power to correct injustices. The debate over the war shouldn't have been whether it was morally right to topple Saddam (which it clearly was), but whether it was prudent to do so given the possible costs and potential consequences of intervention and whether it was legitimate for the United States to invade in the unilateral way that it did.

It was perfectly honorable to agonize over the wisdom of the war, and in many ways admirable that people on the left, such as Christopher Hitchens, George Packer, Michael Ignatieff and Jacob Weisberg, supported intervention. That position was much easier to defend in early 2003, however, before we found absolutely no stocks of chemical or biological weapons and no evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program. (I know that many on the left believe that the prewar estimates about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were all a deliberate fraud by the Bush administration, but if so, it was one in which the U.N. weapons inspectors and French intelligence were also complicit.) It was also easier to support the war before we knew the full dimensions of the vicious insurgency that would emerge and the ease with which the insurgents could disrupt the building of a democratic state.

But in the years since then, it is the right that has failed to come to terms with these uncomfortable facts. The failure to find WMD and to make a quick transition to a stable democracy — as well as the prisoner abuse and the inevitable bad press that emerges from any prolonged occupation — have done enormous damage to America's credibility and standing in the world. These intangible costs have to be added to the balance sheet together with the huge direct human and monetary costs of the war.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently admitted that the United States made numerous tactical errors in Iraq, but she insisted that the basic strategic decision to go to war was still as valid as ever because we foreclosed once and for all the possibility that Iraq would break out of sanctions and restart its WMD programs.

But we now know a lot that throws that fundamental strategic rationale into question.

The Iraq Survey Group and the U.S. military have released hundreds of pages of documents on Iraq's prewar WMD programs showing that, at times, Saddam believed he possessed biological weapons that didn't exist and that, at other times, he led his most senior commanders to believe he had WMD capabilities that he knew were entirely fictitious. His government was so corrupt, incompetent and compartmentalized that it is far from certain that he would have succeeded in building a nuclear program even if sanctions had been lifted. Nor is it clear that a breakdown of the sanctions regime was inevitable, given an energized United States and the very different political climate that existed after 9/11.

The logic of my prewar shift on invading Iraq has now been doubly confirmed. I believe that the neoconservative movement, with which I was associated, has become indelibly associated with a failed policy, and that unilateralism and coercive regime change cannot be the basis for an effective American foreign policy. I changed my mind as part of a necessary adjustment to reality.

What has infuriated many people is President Bush's unwillingness to admit that he made any mistakes whatsoever in the whole Iraq adventure. On the other hand, critics who assert that they knew with certainty before the war that it would be a disaster are, for the most part, speaking with a retrospective wisdom to which they are not entitled.

Many people have noted the ever-increasing polarization of American politics, reflected in news channels and talk shows that cater to narrowly ideological audiences, and in a House of Representatives that has redistricted itself into homogeneous constituencies in which few members have to appeal to voters with diverse opinions. This polarization has been vastly amplified by Iraq: Much of the left now considers the war not a tragic policy mistake but a deliberate criminal conspiracy, and the right attacks the patriotism of those who question the war.

This kind of polarization affects a range of other complex issues as well: You can't be a good Republican if you think there may be something to global warming, or a good Democrat if you support school choice or private Social Security accounts. Political debate has become a spectator sport in which people root for their team and cheer when it scores points, without asking whether they chose the right side. Instead of trying to defend sharply polarized positions taken more than three years ago, it would be far better if people could actually take aboard new information and think about how their earlier commitments, honestly undertaken, actually jibe with reality — even if this does on occasion require changing your mind.

Fukuyama is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the author of "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy." This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Opponents of Iraq war angry at jailing of doctor - 14 Apr 2006 - World News

Opponents of Iraq war angry at jailing of doctor - 14 Apr 2006 - World News: "A decision to jail a New Zealand-born Royal Air Force doctor for refusing to go to Iraq has sparked protests from opponents of the American-led invasion.

Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, was convicted by a five-member panel of officers last night and sentenced to eight months in jail.

He had argued that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and that he should not therefore be forced to go.

Nick Harvey, defence spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats in the UK, said: 'Hostility to the war is not just confined to the public at large, many members of the armed forces share their concern and have genuine moral objections to serving in Iraq.

'This case illustrates the legal quagmire that has developed over the Government's decision to go to war. The Government has repeatedly had to hunt around to find legal justification for this war.'
"

Former British Labour MP Tam Dalyell added that the trials of Nazis for war crimes after the Second world War set down limits on which orders should be obeyed.

He said:

"Any serviceman has obligations, but a doctrine was laid down at Nuremberg that when orders seem to be a crime against humanity, it was not a sufficient excuse to say simply: 'They were orders and I was doing what I was told'."

Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: "Many people believe the war in Iraq was an illegal war and therefore we would consider he was quite within his rights, and it was indeed commendable he believed it was right to stand up to what he considered to be an illegal instruction to engage in an illegal war.

"We have full sympathy for him and he has our full support."

Among those who believe the 2003 conflict to be unlawful are some of the world's leading experts on international law, who maintain that without a second UN resolution the American and British forces lacked the authority to invade Iraq.

Leading the argument on the other side for the British Government is Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General.

He told the Prime Minister that UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which found Saddam Hussein to have failed to disarm, could be used to justify war without a second resolution being passed, if it could be shown that Iraq was still in direct breach.

But it is now clear that even Lord Goldsmith had his reservations about the Government's position because of worries that 1441 did not explicitly set out the conditions upon which military action could be taken.

Senior military staff were so concerned about the possibility of war crimes charges that they approached Lord Goldsmith for firmer reassurances of the legal position just weeks before the conflict began.

In the courts lawyers have tried to show that peace protesters committing criminal damage should not be convicted of any crime because they are trying to prevent a greater wrong - an unlawful war.

The effect of the Kendall-Smith ruling on soldiers who take a similar stand in the future could be even graver.

The Armed Forces Bill - now going through the UK Parliament - will impose harsh penalties, including life imprisonment, on soldiers who refuse to take part in military occupations.

A little-known section introduces a new tougher definition of desertion so soldiers who intend to avoid serving in a "military occupation of a foreign country or territory" can be imprisoned for life.

Top military leaders had chance to oppose Iraq war plans

Stars & Stripes: "Recent statements by retired generals that accuse military officers of remaining silent when disagreeing with civilian leaders “are just flat wrong,” Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, “we had then, and have now, every opportunity to speak our minds,” Pace told Pentagon reporters. “And if we do not, shame on us because the opportunity is there. It is solicited from us. We are expected to.”

In the April 9 issue of Time magazine, Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, the Pentagon’s top operations officer on the Joint Staff during the planning stages of the Iraq war, wrote that “with few exceptions, [military leaders] acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.”"

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace answers a reporter’s question during a news conference at the Pentagton Tuesday. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is at right.

As a result, “my sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results,” he wrote.

In the essay, Newbold also regrets he “did not more openly challenge” civilian leaders while he was there.

And on “Meet the Press” on April 2, retired Marine Gen. Tony Zinni said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should resign.

Zinni, the former head of U.S. Central Command, said also that others should follow Rumsfeld’s lead, including “those who have been responsible for the planning, for overriding all the efforts that were made in planning before that, [and] those who stood by and allowed this to happen, that didn’t speak out.”

Zinni added, “There are appropriate ways within the system you can speak out, at congressional hearings and otherwise. I think they have to be held accountable.”

Pace told reporters his comments were not directed at anyone specifically.

Pace, like Newbold and Zinni, first saw combat as a young lieutenant in Vietnam.

That experience, Pace has said, led him to vow never to keep silent if civilians sent troops into war and micromanaged tactical details that should be left up to military experts.

“To speak up, to tell the truth as we know it … is a sacred obligation of all of us who are fortunate enough to represent all elements of the armed forces and to have the opportunity to participate at this level,” Pace said Tuesday.

But betraying that obligation is exactly the charge being leveled against the Pentagon’s military leaders by Newbold and others.

“Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard,” Newbold wrote.

“The consequence of the military’s quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaida, became a secondary effort.”

Pace said Tuesday that the Iraq war plan “was developed by military officers, presented by military officers, questioned by civilians, as it should [be], revamped by military officers, and blessed by the civilian-military leadership.”

“Our troops deserve and will continue to get our best military thinking,” Pace said.

Iraq war complicates U.S. dealings with Iran

Iraq war complicates U.S. dealings with Iran: "There's a mad Middle Eastern regime pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has proved ineffective to stop it. The international community is divided and feeble. Time seems to be running out.



We have been here before. Today it is Iran; yesterday it was Iraq. Except, in almost every way, the United States is in a far weaker position _ militarily, politically and diplomatically _ to face down an Iranian regime that Tuesday dramatically raised the stakes with its announcement that it had for the first time produced enriched uranium for atomic reactors."

President Bush has called media reports that the United States is considering a pre-emptive military strike against Iran's nuclear program "wild speculation," but there is increased awareness that Washington's patience with the Iranians is running out.

Given what a mess Iraq has become, there will be many who will reject out of hand the idea that the United States should wage war on Iran. Understandable, but unwise. Never say never. However, the situation on the ground in Iraq and the errors the Bush administration has made there raise the bar to an extraordinarily high level.

Polls show that most Americans regret the decision to go to war with Iraq. It's not hard to see why, and these reasons should weigh heavily in any deliberations about a future war with Iran.

The chief rationale the administration offered for the Iraq war was Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, he didn't have them. We have since learned that the White House had intelligence estimates warning that this was the case but ignored them.

Similarly, the administration failed to plan for the effective occupation of Iraq and made serious strategic mistakes that have contributed to the current miserable situation there, which, if it's not a civil war, soon could be. Based on the record, the public is right to be skeptical of the administration's ability to correctly judge and prepare for the contingencies of a Middle East war.

In truth, Iran might be worse than Saddam's Iraq was purported to be. But we don't know. And that's the rub.

Miscalculations about Iraq reveal the limits of American power and make it vastly more difficult for the president to rally the nation and the world to deal with the Iranian menace.

RAF doctor faces court martial over 'illegal war'

Telegraph | News | RAF doctor faces court martial over 'illegal war': "An RAF doctor who refused to serve in Iraq has pleaded not guilty to five charges of failing to comply with a legal order."

Flt Lt Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith is appearing at a court martial in Aldershot, Hants, after refusing to deploy to Basra last year.

The 37-year-old, who has dual British and New Zealand citizenship, denies five charges which relate to his deployment, training and equipment fitting.

He told a pre-trial hearing last month that he refused to go to Iraq because he believed the war was illegal. He had already served two tours of duty in Iraq but refused to return there last June

At that hearing, Kendall-Smith's defence counsel Philip Sapsford QC said the officer believed that because Iraq had not attacked the UK or one of its allies there was no lawful reason to enter Iraq.

On that basis he argued that Kendall-Smith was entitled to disobey the "unlawful" orders.

But Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss ruled at the Aldershot Court Martial Centre, in Hants, that the orders given to Kendall-Smith were lawful and he should face trial.

The Judge Advocate said in his ruling:

"None of the orders given to the defendant in this case was an order to do something which was unlawful."

Judge Advocate Bayliss ruled that four of the five charges related to training prior to deployment, and therefore referred to legal orders given to Kendall-Smith.

He said:

"There can have been no possible illegality in complying with the orders to attend for pistol and rifle training, to attend for a helmet fitting and sizing, or to attend an initial response training course. Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre."

The Judge Advocate added that UK armed forces had full justification under United Nations resolutions to be in Iraq at the time of the charges, from June to July last year.

The trial is expected to last three days.

Iraq War Now A Real Vietnam Mess Driven By Same Lies

Ray Hanania Online: Iraq War Now A Real Vietnam Mess Driven By Same Lies: "Just as other leaders once lied about Vietnam, and lost, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been lying about Iraq, and you can bet we’re going to lose there, too.

It’s a certainty that many Americans realize but so many refuse to see.

Why? Because in America, we have been conditioned to embrace the “happy lies” and denounce the “ugly truths” as unpatriotic, traitorous and unAmerican.

Where did we learn that? From Hollywood movies, of course, which have conditioned us to accept the fantasy of victory over the reality of war.

This week, we recall the images of the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down by Iraqi citizens who were celebrating joyously at our invasion of their country.

They were throwing rose petals and flowers in front of our victorious troops as we rolled into Baghdad, unchallenged, the way we did after our soldiers defeated the Nazis in World War II.

Not.

It’s all a lie, of course.

The truth is that the Iraqi people never pulled down the statue at all. American soldiers pulled the statue down using their military trucks and chains. And then they orchestrated a little celebration.

The cameras were not allowed to show the American soldiers in uniform scrambling to “create a Hollywood image” that would somehow miraculously lead the illegal invasion of Iraq into a righteous celebration of freedom and an American-Arab concoction of Apple Pie mixed with Hummus, a popular Middle East food dip.

And the Iraqi people never really welcomed us. Sure, many hated Saddam Hussein, but far more hate us, today, as deeply as they hated him. Because the reality is that three years after destroying the country of Iraq – a destruction that we rarely write about – the people-led insurgency is making mincemeat out of our soldiers.

We have lost 2,348 American lives in Iraq, which is about what we also lost during the first three years of the Vietnam War.

The only Iraqis who are welcoming us are the handpicked puppets who have done little to lead their people. Yet, they live in a luxury of services and comfort provided at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Why should they live any different than the bosses of Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s company?
Instead of throwing rose petals on the streets in front of our military humvees, the Iraqi people, just like the embittered Vietnamese people did 35 years ago, are throwing IEDs in front of our vehicles killing an average of one soldier or more every day.

And the charges of torture, human rights violations and even out-right murder by American soldiers continues.

It is nothing we should be proud about.

We can excuse it. We can turn our eyes away. We can pretend it is not happening.

But the truth always does return. And one day we will have to face the world and explain what our soldiers did in Iraq.

I know the difference between an illegal war and a just war. We all do. My father and uncle served in World War II. My brother was a Marine and I served in a Vietnam support unit servicing F-111 fighter aircraft stateside during the end of the Vietnam War.

We know the truth.

We knew the truth even before all of the Bush lies were exposed in memos, leaks and reluctant news reports from an embedded news media that continues to not do its job. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Lies. Nuclear weapons threats. Lies. Ties to al-Qaeda. Lies. We had to invade Iraq. Lies.

Just read the memos Bush and Cheney wrote about how they would pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by provoking Saddam Hussein into doing something so they could invade Iraq.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson did the exact same thing at the Gulf of Tonkin to justify the war in Vietnam.

More sickening than the deaths in Iraq is the depravity of our leadership. The lack of morals or principles driving this administration.

Bush should be impeached for the memos, for leaking national security secrets to benefit his lies and for poor leadership.

But many Americans who never served and who do not want their children to serve in fighting this illegal war in Iraq are eager to jump up and down and denounce people like me as being traitors. Yet they NEVER served. They won’t allow their children to serve. And they are happy to have those unlucky enlistees during the pre-Iraq peacetime who were in active duty or in the reserves or national guard do all the dirty work.

If the American people really supported this war and if the cheerleaders for this war who sit back in the comfort of their homes writing about how we are liberating freedom in Iraq really want this war, then let them fight it. Let them send their children. Let them support a nationwide draft so we can raise the fighting force we need to finish the job.

But they won’t, because this illegal war is exactly about how the poor are exploited, the elite and rich are allowed to prance above the morality of the rest of us and lecture us about what the rest of us should be doing.

This war is about money, politics, oil, and power.

It has nothing to do with freedom for anyone. Not freedom for the Iraqi people. Not freedom for the world. Not freedom for our children.
"

Bush authorised Iraq 'leak', White House aide testifies

Independent Online Edition > Americas: "A senior White House official has told prosecutors that President George Bush authorised the dissemination of previously classified intelligence about Iraq's purported weapons arsenal to the media .

Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, is in court charged with obstructing a federal leak investigation. He testified that he had been given permission to share the contents of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities.

He also said he was authorised to talk about Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who had been publicly critical of Mr Bush's conduct over Iraq.

Mr Libby's claims are contained within court papers that were made public yesterday.

However, there is nothing in the papers which suggests Mr Libby claims either Mr Bush or Mr Cheney authorised him to reveal the identity of Mr Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative."

Anti-Iraq war protest to greet Blair in Auckland - 28 Mar 2006

Anti-Iraq war protest to greet Blair in Auckland - 28 Mar 2006 - National News: "British Prime Minister Tony Blair will get a reminder of his problems back home when he arrives in New Zealand this afternoon with anti-Iraq war protesters promising to give him a hot reception. "

Officials have been trying to keep details of the 24-hour visit as restricted as possible, but protests have been planned for Auckland Town Hall tonight.

Visit organisers have been reluctant to even publicly confirm which city Mr Blair will be in, citing security concerns.

During his stay, Mr Blair will visit a school, take part in a Wellington conference on climate change by video link and make a trip to an Auckland winery.

Leaders of the protest claimed it had the backing of Global Peace and Justice Auckland, the Green Party, Unite Union, Workers Party, Workers Charter, Radical Youth, and Auckland Animal Action.

They said in a statement issued before Mr Blair's arrival: "Tony Blair, with his claim that Iraq could launch an attack on Britain using chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, was a pre-eminent deceiver in the lead-up to the war."

Mr Blair said in Australia yesterday that the fight against terrorism was a "struggle about values and modernity" and that he planed to "tough it out" on Iraq.

Prime Minister Helen Clark hopes the stop-over will bring about closer ties between the two countries and assurances that Britain will not make it harder for young New Zealanders to take working holidays in the UK.

"We are looking at a way of formalising policy sharing arrangements between the two countries, " Helen Clark said.

There had been common policy areas in the past which both governments had an interest in such as encouraging savings, benefit reform and health productivity.

Helen Clark has regularly met with Mr Blair in the past and was pleased he had finally taken up her invitation to visit New Zealand.

"I am really pleased he is coming. I think it is important for the relationship and it is also important for us to be able to reciprocate the hospitality that our ministers across all governments for many, many years have been shown by the British Government."

Helen Clark said given the close ties between the two countries it was a "little surprising" that Mr Blair was only the third British prime minister to visit New Zealand while in office.

John Major visited to attend the Commonwealth Head of Government meeting in 1995. Prior to that Harold McMillan was the first Prime Minister to visit New Zealand in 1958.

It will be third time that the pair have met this year and both might be keen to swap notes on the management of political crises.

Helen Clark lost another minister last week to what she regards as smear campaign tactics, but is still maintaining her personal grip on power.

Mr Blair yesterday caused a furore in Britain after saying on a television interview in Australia it may have been a mistake to rule out a fourth term.

He won his third term in 2005, with a sharply reduced majority, partly due to rising opposition to Britain's role in the war in Iraq.

However his supporters expect him to stay on for several years to push through his public service reform agenda and then hand over power to his Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown shortly before the next election.

Mr Blair is expected to leave New Zealand on Wednesday evening, heading to Indonesia before returning to Britain.

Bush-Blair Iraq war memo revealed

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush-Blair Iraq war memo revealed: "From private talks between George Bush and UK PM Tony Blair, the memo makes it clear the US was determined to go to war whether or not he had UN backing."

He is quoted discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation.

A UK lawyer quoted the note in a book published in January but this is the first time it has been seen in full.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to discuss the contents of the memo but said that up until the last moment, President Bush was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iraq issue.

'Twist arms'

The five-page memo, dated 31 January 2003, was written by Mr Blair's then chief foreign adviser, David Manning, the New York Times says.

Summarising the two-hour White House meeting, the memo says: "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning."

Mr Bush is paraphrased as saying: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Although the US and UK pushed for a second UN resolution on Iraq, the memo cites Mr Bush saying he did not believe one was needed.

A second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr Bush is paraphrased as saying.

"But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

Mr Blair is described as responding that both countries must make clear the second resolution was "Saddam's final opportunity".

According to the note, he also told Mr Bush: "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

The UK government has always insisted military action was used as a last resort against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Downing Street has stressed Mr Blair only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons on 18 March 2003.

'Assassination plan'

The memo indicates both leaders acknowledged it was possible no unconventional weapons would be found in Iraq before the invasion, the New York Times says.

The note cites Mr Bush suggesting three ways in which Iraq could be provoked into confrontation.

The US "was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours", Mr Bush said.

If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested.

He also indicated the US "might be able to bring out a defector" to talk about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and mentioned a proposal to assassinate the Iraqi leader.

Mr Bush describes US military strategy in some detail, including a concentrated air campaign.

He predicted it "was unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups" - an opinion with which Mr Blair agreed.

Mr McClellan said he would not comment on private conversations between the two leaders but did say Mr Bush's private comments matched those he made in public.

Excerpts from the memo were first quoted by UK human rights lawyer Philippe Sands in his book Lawless World.

Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq -

Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq - Examiner.com: "The Russian government had sources inside the American military command as it planned and executed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a Pentagon report.
"

The Russians passed information to Saddam Hussein on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war, according to the report Friday.

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

A classified version of the Pentagon report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public.

In Moscow, a duty officer with Russia's Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report late Friday evening. No one answered the phones at the Defense Ministry.

Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq

Russia Had Sources in U.S. Command in Iraq - Examiner.com: "he Russian government had sources inside the American military command as it planned and executed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to Iraqi documents released as part of a Pentagon report."

The Russians passed information to Saddam Hussein on U.S. troop movements and plans during the opening days of the war, according to the report Friday.

The unclassified report does not assess the value of the information or provide details beyond citing two captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

A classified version of the Pentagon report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project," is not being made public.

Following Bush's lead, conservatives mounted offensive against "biased" Iraq war coverage

Media Matters - Following Bush's lead, conservatives mounted offensive against "biased" Iraq war coverage: "Summary: President Bush and senior aides have claimed that Americans are increasingly disillusioned about the Iraq war because the mainstream media report only the violent and tragic events occurring there -- an accusation that has simultaneously been advanced by an array of conservative media figures."

As part of the White House's current public relations blitz, President Bush and senior aides have claimed that Americans are increasingly disillusioned about the Iraq war because the mainstream media report only the violent and tragic events occurring there. Bush has said that the negative coverage provoked him to explain directly to the public why he remains optimistic about the U.S. mission in Iraq. This accusation -- that the purportedly biased media coverage is undermining support for the war -- has been leveled at news outlets this week not only by the White House; it has simultaneously been advanced by an array of conservative media figures.

The following are examples from recent days of Bush and administration officials directing blame at the media's coverage of Iraq:

On March 19, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on CBS' Face the Nation and answered a question about the sagging support for the Iraq war by noting that "there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad."

During a March 20 press gaggle, White House press secretary Scott McClellan discussed the speech Bush would give later that day in Cleveland. McClellan said that the "dramatic images that people see on the TV screens ... are much easier to put into a news clip" and told reporters that the president would address the "real progress being made toward a democratic future."

In his speech to the City Club of Cleveland, Bush said he understood "how some Americans have had their confidence shaken." He continued: "Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq." Bush then talked about the town of Tal Afar, which he described as a "concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens."

Later in the speech, Bush said: "The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured."

During a March 21 press conference, Bush said that "for every act of violence, there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news."

Later in the press conference, Bush claimed that he had presented "a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate. ... They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win. "

As the White House mounted its offensive in recent days, the Bush administration's argument that news outlets have consistently ignored the good news in Iraq in favor of reports on bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities has echoed throughout the media. For instance, as MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted on the March 22 edition of Countdown, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham appeared on NBC's Today on March 21 and complained that the network's Iraq correspondents only "report[] from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs [improvised explosive devices] going off." Later that day, in an appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham claimed that there are many in the media "who are invested in America's defeat." O'Reilly, in turn, expressed his belief that "there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes," as Media Matters for America noted.

Beyond O'Reilly, many other Fox News hosts, analysts, and guests similarly attacked the media's coverage of the war:

Radio host G. Gordon Liddy said that "those in the news media ... would rather the United States lose a war than have history write that George W. Bush was a successful president." [Hannity & Colmes, 3/20/06]

Radio host Tammy Bruce said, "[T]he president has a big order to contradict what the mainstream media is doing." She expressed support for his efforts to "give an overall picture that the mainstream media is not providing the average American." [Fox News Live, 3/20]

Host Jon Scott prefaced a question to Sen. George Allen [R-VA] by saying, "We heard the president talk about how things are going better in cities like Tal Afar than the media would have you believe and, lo and behold, out comes a front page story from The Washington Post about how things really aren't that good in Tal Afar." [Fox News Live, 3/21]

Syndicated columnist and Fox News political analyst Robert D. Novak said that "the intensity of the hatred ... toward George W. Bush by Democrats and by some of the people in the media is just so intense, and it begins to have a kind of an effect that affects people who don't hate him." [Hannity & Colmes, 3/22/06]

Radio host Mark Williams described the "daily drum beat of the mainstream media telling us the we are losing a war that we are winning." [Fox News Live, 3/22/06]

Host Sean Hannity said on his syndicated radio show that "the media is intent on undermining the president in this battle" and claimed there "has been a total and almost complete focus on all the negative aspects of the war." He later boasted that Bush had "stuck it in their face. They [the media] are fat, they are lazy, they have a pack mentality, they are partisan, and they are not doing their job, and they are not doing a service for the American people, and they are failing in their mission, and they purposely fail in their mission, and they get away with it each and every day." [ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 3/22/06]

Other conservative media outlets have voiced similar sentiments in recent days:

• Radio host Hugh Hewitt claimed that "a great deal of American mainstream media is invested in the idea that this [the Iraq war] is a disaster." He further said, "There's quite a lot not being covered because to cover it and to cover it extensively, will not only support the Bush administration decision to go to war here, but make it appear as though it's one of the wisest he has made." [CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, 3/21/06]
• Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens described a "herd mentality" among the media covering Iraq: "[I]t's been there since before the war, and it's placed a bet on quagmire at best ... and defeat at worst. And in some ways, it doesn't want its prediction to be falsified." [Salem Radio Network's The Hugh Hewitt Show, 3/22/06]
• A March 22 Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that the Iraq war had been marked by "a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged."
• On the March 23 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto interviewed Gayle Taylor, who in the question-and-answer portion of a March 22 town hall meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia, complained to Bush that "it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good." Raucous applause followed her comments. During the entire interview, the onscreen text read "AMERICA WANTS TO SEE THE GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ TOO!" Later in the show, during an interview with Fox News host Eric Burns, the onscreen text read "IS THE MEDIA HOPELESSLY BIASED AGAINST PRES BUSH?"

The barrage of criticism has led news outlets to devote significant airtime to the issue. CNN has devoted numerous segments to the issue in recent days (see here, here, here, here and here). On the March 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Washington Post media critic and CNN host Howard Kurtz went so far as to endorse the idea that journalists are consciously framing their stories on Iraq negatively. "I think it's not unconnected to the public opinion polls," Kurtz said. "I think journalists are finding it easier to ask aggressive questions of President Bush, to frame the stories more negatively, in terms of the American presence there, because they know a majority of the country now questions or disagrees with that war effort." But while Kurtz attributed the negative coverage to public opinion, CNN anchor Jack Cafferty -- immediately following Kurtz's appearance -- attributed it to the fact that the "news isn't good in Iraq":

CAFFERTY: They don't like the coverage, maybe, because we were sold a different ending to this story three years ago. We were told we'd be embraced as conquering heroes, flower petals strewn in the soldiers' paths, unity government would be formed, everything would be rosy. This, three years after the fact, the troops would be home. Well, it's not turning out that way. And if somebody came into New York City and blew up St. Patrick's Cathedral and in the resulting days they were finding 50 and 60 dead bodies on the streets in New York, do you suppose the news media would cover it? You're damn right they would. This is nonsense: "It's the media's fault the news isn't good in Iraq." The news isn't good in Iraq. There's violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn't turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it's our fault? I beg to differ.

From the March 19 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Vice President, all along the government has been very optimistic. You remain optimistic. But I remember when you were saying we'd be greeted as liberators, you played down the insurgency 10 months ago. You said it was in its last throes. Do you believe that these optimistic statements may be one of the reasons that people seem to be more skeptical in this country about whether we ought to be in Iraq?

CHENEY: No. I think it has less to do with the statements we've made, which I think were basically accurate and reflect reality, than it does with the fact that there's a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad. It's not all the work that went on that day in 15 other provinces in terms of making progress towards rebuilding Iraq.

From the March 20 White House press gaggle:

McCLELLAN: So Iraqi political leaders are continuing to move forward, and they recognize the importance of doing it as quickly as possible to form a government of national unity. They understand the importance of moving as quickly as they can. So I think you have to look at those aspects of what's taking place on the ground.

There is certainly the dramatic images that people see on the TV screens which are much easier to put into a news clip. But there is also real progress being made toward a democratic future for the Iraqi people and I think the president will touch on this a little bit in his remarks.

From Bush's March 20 address to the City Club of Cleveland:

The situation on the ground remains tense. And in the face of continued reports about killings and reprisals, I understand how some Americans have had their confidence shaken. Others look at the violence they see each night on their television screens, and they wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they don't. So today I'd like to share a concrete example of progress in Iraq that most Americans do not see every day in their newspapers and on their television screens. I'm going to tell you the story of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar, which was once a key base of operations for Al Qaeda and is today a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq.

[...]

The kind of progress that we and the Iraqi people are making in places like Tal Afar is not easy to capture in a short clip on the evening news. Footage of children playing, or shops opening, and people resuming their normal lives will never be as dramatic as the footage of an IED explosion, or the destruction of a mosque, or soldiers and civilians being killed or injured. The enemy understands this, and it explains their continued acts of violence in Iraq. Yet the progress we and the Iraqi people are making is also real. And those in a position to know best are the Iraqis, themselves.

From Bush's March 21 press conference:

Yesterday I delivered a -- the second in a series of speeches on the situation in Iraq. I spoke about the violence that the Iraqi people had faced since last month's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. I also said that for every act of violence there is encouraging progress in Iraq that's hard to capture on the evening news.

[...]

Secondly, I am confident -- I believe, I'm optimistic we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way. And that's important for the woman to understand.

Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television -- and there is bad news. You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday -- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it. I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.

From Bush's March 22 town hall meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is my husband, who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit.

BUSH: Oh, yes. Thank you. Welcome back.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: His job while serving was as a broadcast journalist. And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on. And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart, for a solution to this, because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good. They just want to focus -- (applause) --

BUSH: Okay, hold on a second.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: They just want to focus on another car bomb, or they just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing, when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway. But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on Fox, to get it on headline news, to get it on the local news? Because you can send it to the news people -- and I'm sorry, I'm rambling -- like I have --

BUSH: So was I, though, for an hour.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.

BUSH: Well, I appreciate that. No, it -- that's why I come out and speak. I spoke in Cleveland, gave a press conference yesterday -- spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference, here today. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing to try to make sure people can hear there's -- why I make decisions, and as best as I can, explain why I'm optimistic we can succeed.

One of the things that we've got to value is the fact that we do have a media, free media, that's able to do what they want to do. And I'm not going to -- you're asking me to say something in front of all the cameras here. Help over there, will you?

I just got to keep talking. And one of the -- there's word of mouth, there's blogs, there's Internet, there's all kinds of ways to communicate which is literally changing the way people are getting their information. And so if you're concerned, I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that have got Internet sites, and just keep the word -- keep the word moving. And that's one way to deal with an issue without suppressing a free press. We will never do that in America. I mean, the minute we start trying to suppress our press, we look like the Taliban. The minute we start telling people how to worship, we look like the Taliban. And we're not interested in that in America. We're the opposite. We believe in freedom. And we believe in freedom in all its forms. And obviously, I know you're frustrated with what you're seeing, but there are ways in this new kind of age, being able to communicate, that you'll be able to spread the message that you want to spread.

From the March 21 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: But here's my problem. And this is a serious problem. We saw it at the top of the show with what's-her-name who was bantering with Bush -- the older woman.

INGRAHAM: [Hearst Newspapers columnist] Helen Thomas.

O'REILLY: Helen Thomas. I believe that there is a segment of the media trying to undermine the policy in Iraq for their own ideological purposes. It's no longer dissent. It's no longer skepticism. It's, "We want to undermine it," and that disturbs me. Do you see that?

INGRAHAM: I see that pretty much every day, that there is a group of people who are invested in America's defeat, in a -- in one of the most important conflicts in our nation's history. And being invested in defeat as an American -- I don't care if you're a reporter, a commentator, or a businessperson. How have we gotten to this point in this country regardless of what people think of Bush?

O'REILLY: Because of hatred. Ideological hatred got us to that point.

From the March 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

LIDDY: What concerns me is -- and I do not put you, Alan, in this category -- I actually think that there are some persons, including those in the news media, who would rather the United States lose a war than have history write that George W. Bush was a successful president.

COLMES: Who would that be?

LIDDY: And I think that's pretty bad.

COLMES: Who?

LIDDY: The national -- NBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, that crowd.

From the March 20 edition of Fox News Live:

BRUCE: I love the fact that [Chicago Tribune deputy managing editor] Jim [Warren] is admitting that, in fact, ultimately in the long run, just like with Germany and Japan, that our presence there will pay off -- that it's worth doing. And I think the president has a big order to contradict what the mainstream media is doing. You know, my favorite problem here. But that's the reality. And that's why he needs to have these press conferences. He needs to be very clear -- frankly, not too detailed. But give an overall picture that the mainstream media is not providing the average American.

From the March 21 edition of Fox News Live:

SCOTT: Joining us now from the University of Virginia, a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, Virginia Republican Senator George Allen. Senator, we heard the president yesterday talk about how things are going better in cities like Tal Afar than the media would have you believe and, lo and behold, out comes a front-page story from The Washington Post about how things really aren't that good in Tal Afar. What do you make of that?

From the March 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: I don't understand one thing. Why isn't the message of success on the economy, the message of success in Afghanistan and Iraq, why does it not seem to be getting out that much?

NOVAK: Well, there are several reasons. One reason is that the -- the intensity of the hatred, and I use the word "hatred" advisedly, toward George W. Bush by Democrats and by some of the people in the media is just so intense, and it begins to have a kind of an effect that affects people who don't hate him. I think the 2000 election is still in the craw of many Democrats that can't accept this president.

From the March 22 edition of Fox News Live:

WILLIAMS: I think what you see reflected in the polls is the daily drumbeat of the mainstream media telling us that we are losing a war that we are winning. It's as simple as that. Television works, and if you pound a message home enough, it sooner or later will show up in the polls.

From the March 22 edition of The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: And the bottom line, and the truth here, is that the media is intent on undermining the president in this battle, in this conflict, in this war, and they have been that way from the very beginning. There has been a total and almost complete focus on all the negative aspects of the war. Now, we got a little taste of this during the Vietnam War, we got a little taste when Reagan was president.

[...]

And if it weren't for the alternative media, where would you ever hear any of these things? And what the president did yesterday is he stuck it in their face. They are fat, they are lazy, they have a pack mentality, they are partisan, and they are not doing their job, and they are not doing a service for the American people, and they are failed in their mission, and they purposely fail in their mission, and they get away with it each and every day. And you know, what finally -- it's good the president has decided and his aides have decided, "Let's expose this."

From the March 21 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

HEWITT: That having been said, a great deal of American mainstream media is invested in the idea that this is a disaster, that it will bring down Bush, that it was a mistake at the beginning, and disaster for the Middle East. They are pushing that agenda, quite obviously, over and over again, to the exclusion of important stories like the book by Georges Sada, Saddam's general, like the Philippine -- the documents released today, covered in The Weekly Standard, about the Kuwaiti hostages denied by Iraq having even been there but now revealed today to have been used as human shields by the matazahadr (ph) sons of Saddam.

There's quite a lot not being covered because to cover it and to cover it extensively, will not only support the Bush administration decision to go to war here but make it appear as though one of the wisest he has made. And indeed, investment in the failure of this operation is what is bringing increased contempt for the American media across the land except on the noisy left. And the noisy left doesn't win elections.

From the March 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Howie, is it true -- based on your observation of the news media, as the president and the vice president continue to maintain -- that the negative -- all of our mainstream media reporting has tended to be on the negative?

KURTZ: Well, certainly not all of it, Wolf. And I don't agree with that woman in West Virginia who said that journalists are doing this because they don't agree with the Bush policy. But I've looked very carefully in recent weeks from the time of those mosque bombings through the third-year anniversary stories of the U.S.-led invasion, and the tone of a whole lot of this coverage has been negative, has been downbeat, has been pessimistic. In part, that's because a lot of the news out of Iraq has not been good. But I think we may be reaching kind of a tipping point here that we saw in Vietnam, where the press coverage seems to tilt against this war effort.

BLITZER: So you've seen a change in recent weeks? Is that what you're saying?

KURTZ: Absolutely, compared to, say, a year ago or two years ago. I think it's not unconnected to the public opinion polls. I think journalists are finding it easier to ask aggressive questions of President Bush, to frame the stories more negatively, in terms of the American presence there, because they know a majority of the country now questions or disagrees with that war effort. I do think, however, that a lot of journalists make an effort to talk to ordinary Iraqis and to report on signs of progress. But let's face it: In our business, the car bombing, the suicide attack, the attack on a police station, those tend to be top of the newscast, top-of-the-front-page kinds of stories. The other reconstruction efforts are less dramatic and tend to get pushed back.

[...]

CAFFERTY: You know, I just have a question. I mean, the coverage -- they don't like the coverage, maybe, because we were sold a different ending to this story three years ago. We were told we'd be embraced as conquering heroes, flower petals strewn in the soldiers' paths, unity government would be formed, everything would be rosy. This, three years after the fact, the troops would be home. Well, it's not turning out that way. And if somebody came into New York City and blew up St. Patrick's Cathedral and in the resulting days they were finding 50 and 60 dead bodies on the streets in New York, do you suppose the news media would cover it? You're damn right they would. This is nonsense: "It's the media's fault the news isn't good in Iraq." The news isn't good in Iraq. There's violence in Iraq. People are found dead every day in the streets of Baghdad. This didn't turn out the way the politicians told us it would. And it's our fault? I beg to differ.

What has US-launched war brought Iraq?

What has US-launched war brought Iraq?: " Massive anti-war demonstrations swept the world to mark the third anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, which hit the headlines of media worldwide on March 20. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Australia, Japan, and Britain to strongly demand the end of the war and withdrawal of foreign troops from the war-ravaged country."

Three years have elapsed since the U.S. launched the war on Iraq, people now began to look back at the war and posed such a question: “What has the United States brought Iraq and the world at large?”

Saddam's regime was overthrown. However, the war still rages on. At least 35,000 Iraqis, more than 2,300 American soldiers and about 109 journalists have been killed in Iraq to date. What’s worse, escalating sectarian conflicts are bringing Iraq to the brink of a civil war.

The placards held by demonstrators explicitly reflected the opinion of people around the globe, "No occupation of Iraq", “Stop the War”, “Murderer USA”, “The war is illegal”. All these voices are echoed by Chinese netizens on the Xinhuanet Online Forum:

-- Yes to peace, no to war!

-- This is an immoral war that has plunged the Iraqi people into a miserable life. We are strongly opposed to this wicked war! Let’s pray for peace! Let us live in a world of peace!

--We oppose Bush’s policy on Iraq! Now, two-thirds of Americans share the view that the Bush Administration handles the Iraq issue inappropriately.

--The misery the war has brought the Iraqi people is beyond description. It is the Iraqi people who are the biggest victims.

--Without UN approval, US-led forces invaded Iraq, a sovereign nation, under the pretext of “safeguarding human rights”. The war killed thousands of young Americans who should not have gone there, as well as an even greater number of innocent Iraqis.

--The U.S., which claimed itself to be the strongest country in the world, has failed to conquer a small country like Iraq after three years of war. This indicates that people can never be conquered.

--In fact, it is the U.S. interest groups that launched the Iraq war. Consequently, American people are now burdened with this dirty war and the whole world is indignant, too. The desire of a fierce animal without restraint is horrible!

--It is heartbroken to look at the crying little Iraqi girl! I believe that no people of any country are willing to live under the iron heel of a power like the United States.

--The current terrible situation in Iraq shows that the US is not a savior. Even with the toppling of Saddam's regime, the Iraqi people didn’t enjoy “democracy and freedom” promised by America. On the contrary, their basic living conditions they had had before the war have been deprived thoroughly!

Bush sees troops still in Iraq in 3 years

Top News Article | Reuters.co.uk: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday it is possible some U.S. troops will still be in Iraq after his presidency ends in three years time, but he insisted civil war had not erupted there."

Washington has resisted setting a timetable for withdrawal although American officials have said a substantial pullout could start later this year and many of Bush's Republican allies are anxious to show progress before U.S. congressional elections in November.

With Iraqi leaders and the U.S. ambassador warning of the imminent risk of civil war in Iraq, the 133,000 heavily armed U.S. troops are seen as vital in stemming violence.

Asked when all U.S. forces would finally pull out of Iraq, Bush told a White House news conference: "That will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

Bush must step down when his term ends in January 2009.

White House officials cautioned that Bush was asked when "all" U.S. forces would withdraw and pointed to recent comments from U.S. generals in Iraq predicting substantial reductions later this year and into 2007.

Defence officials also said Army Gen. John Abizaid, who oversees U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as head of Central Command, had agreed to keep the job at least another year at the request of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking to troops in Illinois, held out hope for troop reductions but said the decisions would be made by military commanders.

"As the Iraqi forces gain strength and experience, and as the political process advances, we'll be able to decrease troop levels without losing our capacity to defeat the terrorists," Cheney told soldiers at Scott Air Force Base.

CIVILIAN KILLINGS

As Bush addressed Americans' concerns on Iraq three years after the U.S. invasion, Iraqis voiced new complaints about alleged killings of civilians by U.S. troops.

The military announced a second investigation in the space of a few days into accusations that soldiers shot women and children in their homes.

A U.S. Army dog handler was convicted of abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison and faces more than eight years in jail.

The U.S.-trained Iraqi forces that Washington hopes will take on most security tasks suffered one of their worst setbacks when suspected al Qaeda guerrillas killed at least 22 people, mostly policemen, and freed over 30 prisoners from jail.

About 100 insurgents staged the dawn raid on two official buildings in Miqdadiya, northeast of Baghdad, officials said. Ten of the attackers were also killed, one source said.

Bush dismissed comments from former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that sectarian violence constituted civil war, saying it was a good sign that an attack a month ago on a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra failed to spark all-out conflict.

"The way I look at it, the Iraqis took a look and decided not to give in to civil war," Bush said.

UPBEAT MESSAGE

Despite grim images on television screens of death and mayhem, Bush remained upbeat. "I'm optimistic we'll succeed," he said. "If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way."

In Iraq, a delegation of U.S. senators expressed impatience with Iraqi leaders' failure, three months after an election, to form a government that could help contain the conflict.

"The American people are of good heart ... but do not try in any way to deceive them or let this progress indicate to the world a less than sincere and prompt effort to bring about a new government," John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after meeting Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.

"There has to be some pressure put on political leaders to reach a settlement," said his Democratic colleague Sen. Carl Levin. "The American people are impatient."

A U.S. soldier was shot dead in Baghdad Tuesday, the 2,319th American serviceman to die in the conflict.

The U.S. military said it was investigating Iraqi police allegations that its troops shot dead a family of 11, including five children, in their home at Ishaqi, north of Baghdad, last week. Soldiers said they killed four, including a militant.

The probe began after a magazine published allegations that U.S. Marines killed 15 civilians in another town last year. A criminal inquiry into those deaths was launched last week.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Washington, Michael Georgy, Ross Colvin, Aseel Kami, Mariam Karouny, Omar al-Ibadi and Hiba Moussa in Baghdad and Ali al-Mashhadani in Haditha)

Veterans' Voices on Iraq: The War in Their Words

Veterans' Voices on Iraq: The War in Their Words - The Clarion-Ledger: "

The heat, which is like living under a french-fry lamp, like standing in front of the world's biggest hair dryer, like sitting in a sealed car on the hottest summer day in Washington with the heater blasting and someone throwing sand in your face."

The mud, which follows the hot season, cold, slimy, sticky mud that makes you wish it would turn hot again.

The green that erupts after a spring rain and astounds you the first time you see it. The blue of the timeless sky above and beyond all the troubles. The black of the inky desert night, thickly dusted with stars and galaxies.

The eyes of the children.

These are some of the things they remember from their service in Iraq.

Over the past year, The Washington Post conducted in-depth interviews with 100 of the more than 500,000 veterans of the war. They included men and women, officers and enlisted, active-duty and reserves, combat and support troops. The questions were open-ended. The intent was to hear from them, in their own words, what the experience was like.

They remembered the camel spiders, big, fast and scary-looking. The sand flies, scorpions, mosquitoes and flying crickets. The long, hard days - 12-hour shifts that easily turn into 20-hour shifts when they don't turn into round-the-clock marathons.

They remembered the roaring metal of System of a Down and Adema, the throbbing rap of Public Enemy and 50 Cent, the soldier-celebrating anthems of Toby Keith:

And I can't call in sick on Mondays/ When the weekend's been too

strong/ I just work straight through the holidays/ And sometimes all

night long. ...

Stringing Xbox cables from bunk to bunk to play Madden football or Tony Hawk skateboarding games in the two-man residential trailers known as "cans." Visiting the "hadji marts," clusters of enterprising Iraqis who sell everything from bootleg DVDs to rotgut alcohol on the roadside just beyond the wire of nearly every camp. Watching an entire season of "The Simpsons" or "CSI" or "Saved by the Bell" on your laptop. Watching your baby grow up via e-mail and webcam.

Wondering how honest to be with the folks back home. You don't want them to worry. So you try to sound cheerfully vague and remind them to send gummy candies, which don't melt, rather than chocolates, which do. But all that loving deception ends in a whoosh if a mortar hits during a telephone call to Mom.

Iraq was bad, nearly all of them agreed. "Not knowing day to day what was going to happen." "Hard to figure out who the enemy was." "Never being able to relax." "The rules are that there are no rules."

But it was not bad in the ways they see covered in the media - the majority also agreed on this. What they experienced was more complex than the war they saw on television and in print. It was dangerous and confused, yes, but most of the vets also recalled enemies routed, buildings built and children befriended, against long odds in a poor and demoralized country. "We feel like we're doing something, and then we look at the news and you feel like you're getting bashed." "It seems to me the media had a predetermined script." The vibe of the coverage is just "so, so, so negative."

No two sets of memories were identical. This almost goes without saying, but not quite, because it underscores a point made by many of the veterans. Some of the deepest impressions left over from Iraq were not the externals - the sights, sounds, smells, scenes - but the internal marks. In Iraq, they saw, did and endured things they hadn't seen, done or imagined before, and this affected each one uniquely.

"Each individual over there has his own little war he is fighting," Army medic Joe Drennan explained. "No two people are going to have the same experiences." These personal wars add up to the war they share.

A lot depended on when they were over there.

The invasion - three years ago Sunday - was a blur, pulsing with excitement and wired on Adderall. Invasion vets remembered villages of blank-faced Iraqis lining the roads as the armor sped past, and ranks of empty Iraqi tanks bombed out in the desert, and busloads of men in civilian clothes suddenly opening fire, and a sandstorm so thick they could hardly see their hands in front of their faces.

Arriving in Baghdad, "I had an Iraqi citizen come up to me," said Lance Cpl. Daniel Finn, a Marine infantryman. "She was a female. She opened her mouth and she had no tongue. She was pointing at the statue" of Saddam Hussein. "There were people with no fingers, waving at the statue of Saddam, telling us he tortured them. People were showing us the scars on their backs."

After the initial victory came lean months when the war had too much death and not enough infrastructure. Troops slept in their armored trucks - if their trucks were armored. They ate cold chow and drank hot water and dug pit toilets where they suffered "Saddam's revenge." They scraped the grime from their skin with baby wipes mailed from home. No one had planned for so many Americans to live in Iraq for so long.

Little by little, the cans arrived with their cushioned bunks and air conditioning. Showers and restrooms were built. Apart from the improvised explosive devices, the ambushes, the suicide bombers and the mortar attacks, life became sort of bearable. Rec centers opened with large-screen TVs and air-hockey tables. Dining halls began serving hot food and icy sodas.

Once-a-week phone calls home gave way to broadband Internet connections. Movie theaters and coffee bars opened. Gyms were built on most bases.

"The great stress reliever was exercise" - veterans reported this again and again. Opportunities for sex apparently varied from one part of the country to another, and drinking was forbidden. A few veterans admitted that they had a swig, or more, of bootlegged or smuggled booze. But the most common way to vent the tension was to pump iron and work the cardio machines for an hour or two at the end of a long day.

With a few exceptions, the veterans described a highly professional, almost spartan force, characterized by resilient morale and good discipline. "I didn't touch a girl or alcohol for seven months, and that was tough," said Sgt. Christopher Johnson of the Marine Reserve. Many said they were ready to return to Iraq.

In some ways, they talked about a war much like all wars for all troops in all times. It was a test, personal and elemental. To understand it, you must go through it; no words could entirely convey the experience to those who were not there. Many veterans described a moment, different for each person, when the test boiled down to a single yes-or-no question - again, slightly different for each person.

Would you fight or flee? Would you crack under pressure? Would you shoot or freeze? Was it better to know that you hit your target, or not to know?

Army Staff Sgt. Christopher Day spoke of wondering "what I would do when I start getting shot at. Will I fire back or curl in a ball? And sure enough, I fired back right away."

The reason he fired back was also timeless. "It was not so much for myself, but for the guys beside me," Day said. "I was shooting and trying to kill the people that were trying to kill my friends."

He used the word "friends." Others preferred family terms. GIs talked about their "brothers." Officers spoke of their "kids." The intense bonds they formed had little to do with like-mindedness and everything to do with shared risk and mutual dependence.

"Soldiers are nonpartisan," explained Staff Sgt. Larry Gill of the National Guard. "We could give a rat's heehaw about same-sex marriage or other issues. We're given a job to do, and you go out and do your job. Because if you don't, someone's going to get hurt or die."

The officers are often gung-ho. "We are professionals," said Capt. Tyler McIntyre of the Army headquarters staff. "If you just step back, give us some breathing space, let us do our job, we'll get it done."

The enlisted troops, sometimes less so. You "meet a lot of active-duty hoorah guys and then some of us who were National Guardsmen who weren't so sure why we were there," said Spec. Amy Capistran, a mechanic with the Virginia National Guard. In other ways, it has been a war like no other.

Civilian contractors performed many of the support roles that would have been handled by GIs in past wars. Some of these were menial jobs few would have wanted. Other contractors did security work. To many troops, it didn't seem fair that these mercenaries earned big salaries and could party after work.

Technology shaped the war experience in ways both good and bad. The distance between troops and their families was closed by e-mail and satellites and instant messages and blogs. But officers worried constantly that families might discover bad news inadvertently. The bad news as of Saturday was 2,313 killed and 17,124 wounded.

The presence of women in a wider variety of roles also sets the Iraq war apart. Commanders have struggled, in some cases, to know how to manage a coed military. 1st Lt. Tanya Lawrence-Riggins of the Army National Guard said she and the other women in her unit had to bathe outdoors, screened by parked trucks, because an active-duty commanding officer didn't want them in the showers.

Other women complained that every friendship they formed with a male soldier was grist for gossip. "The rumor mill was horrific," said National Guard Lt. Connie Woodyard, whose husband served at another base in Iraq. "I was just like, 'I'm not getting that much sex! If I were, I'd like war a whole lot more.' "

The difference between a hot day and a cold day in Iraq is more than 100 degrees. The historical sites are among the oldest in the world - the ruins of Babylon, Nineveh and Ur. The poverty in some places is appalling. Iraq is an extreme land, where American troops must cope with extremity.

Extremes of doubt: "It was hard to figure out who the enemy was. Everyone practically looks the same and dresses the same. You didn't know who was a terrorist and who was not," said Spec. Greg Seely, a Virginia National Guardsman.

Extremes of emotion: "The bombs were everywhere," said Army Staff Sgt. John Thomas. "You feel like you are in a movie. You drive through the town, you see the women out in the fields, and children and other people are on the roofs watching. They are waiting on the roofs to see you get blown up."

Extremes of angst: "It's a lot harder than what a lot of people think, especially if you have a family," said Navy Corpsman Nathanial Slenker. "You're worried about your family. About the friends that you're there with. You worry about yourself and your ability to keep handling situations. You're constantly worrying."