We must have two objectives. A strong military response to the current uprising by a small number of Iraqi's and the outsiders and an unbending commitment to the June 30 handover to local control. We cannot let the current fighting (with the accompanying breathless media hysteria) dissuade us from pushing responsiblility to the Iraqi's for self government. These two current factions want nothing more than to create choas and cause us to continue our political control. In that environment, the chances of opposition attracting larger numbers only grows.

Our military will still be in country long after June 30 and will still be doing some heavey lifting. We must create an environment where these thugs are fighting against the Iraqi government rather than the US occupying forces.

Talk about the fog of war. One can almost predict how the story will come out based upon known political opinions of the reporter. From those who opposed the war from the outset we get dire accounts of thousands of Iraqis of all religious stripes streaming to the insurgency. From those who supported it we get confident assurances that the resistance is coming from a relatively small group of fanatics whom we can quickly crush.

I have no idea where the truth lies, but my guess would be that most Iraqis just want the violence to end and will support the likely victor. If that is true, James Na's advice seems quite plausible. But I think we must entertain the possiblity that a harsh repression will produce our worst nightmare: converting the terrorists into the expression of Iraqi nationalism.

I would have more confidence in the administration's strategy, if I could see what Plan B looks like in the event that the worst-case scenario develops.

The administration has not exactly covered itself with glory in this whole enterprise. Having first emphasized the wrong reason for intervening in Iraq (the whole WMD fiasco), they now offer assesments that seem patently too optimistic.

Civil order is the most basic civil right, since it is the precondition of every other. We are clearly not doing very well in this regard and a little more sobriety from the administration would be welcome.

So also a little support from the Democratic candidate.

One thing that will be really helpful would be for the Democratic candidate to declare in very forceful terms that, were he elected come November, he would continue the policies of the current administration regarding Iraq. That means more violence right up to the election.

Anything less than that is going to invite an intense effort on the part of all those who are interested in sliding Iraq into chaos to unseat the incumbent American president.

I was very surprised by the responses I received after writing this piece. Most of the e-mails I received were very positive about the piece. I only receive a couple that were negative.

One was so funny, I must mention it. A self-proclaimed anthropologist from the University of Washington wrote to complain that either 1) I made up my tagline (about other publications) in order to engage in "right-wing self-aggrandizement") or 2) I don't exist (my piece was a "plant" from a righ-wing conspiracy).

I would like to know how different "left-wing self-aggrandizement" would be from a "right-wing" one. I always thought that I was just out to "libertarian" self-aggrandize. : )