Thank you for this article, Dr. Hanson. People are often still amazed when I tell them my own anecdotal stories from my time in Iraq. When I tell them that we were able to establish a sense of calm and cooperation throughout our area, following on the hard work of the units that preceded us, they seem utterly shocked. The inevitable, "do you think we'll be successful?" or "should we be there?" follows. I say "yes" and hope to persuade them to reconsider their previously held biases about our purposes in Iraq. However, this article is an excellent opportunity to turn them on to a more scholarly and weighty approach to understanding Iraq. It is also encouraging to see people such as yourself continue to support what we've done there. It often seems that everyone has given up on our purposes there. But this article is a welcome reminder that support still exists.

Horton's will do.

With regards to the political question, politics takes place on the battle field as much as it does in Washington. Commanders from the lowest levels on up practice local politics at an ever increasing degree of magnitude as you reach higher levels of command. It's not unlike your local mayor, state governor, etc. The choices are obviously of a different nature as are the consequences. But in today's combat environment in Iraq and Afghanistan, commanders of all levels must be proficient in both killing and politicking. So, it seems to me that political skill is as much necessary for a general as it is a politician.

As for Petraeus, having spent many months serving under him in Iraq, I never once heard anyone intimate that he is "soft." Having escorted him through my area of operation on one occasion, I could discern nothing in him that suggested he was political at the expense of also being an effective and violent, when necessary, commander. This is colloquial evidence and not hard proof. However, it seems to me that Petraeus is our best choice, combining the tactical command sense necessary with a political savvy that seems lost on McChrystal.

Starbucks....?

A local town here will be celebrating the 4th of July by giving a "dramatic reading" of the Declaration--fireworks were too expensive this year. Perhaps, as it's final piece of legislation, this congress could pass a law establishing a federal holiday to celebrate the passing of such "historic" legislation as Obamacare and financial reform. And on every anniversary, Dodd, Pelosi and others would attend celebrations where there would also be dramatic readings of their prized legislation.

The most tragic thing in all of this is that no one wins. McChrystal acted unprofessionally and completely out of line as has been stated. As a result, he deserved to be fired. However, the President, as Andrea points out, has zero leadership skills and as a result is already in a deficit of respect. By "being forceful" and firing McChrystal, Obama does not regain his position as an admired leader. Instead, he continues to be a poor and disengaged leader who made one right choice. So, in the end, McChrystal loses his job, his attitude disrespects the soldiers who have served beneath him, and our President will continue making the same choices he has been making since Last January. On the upside, Petraeus is in town and may have some fresh ideas. However, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew and Don and say that, "we're not in Kansas anymore."