The questions that sergeant put to a Washington Post reporter are ones our commander in chief had better begin to address.

The reasons we are still there is to support the interim government.

Sorry that the unnamed/unranked sergeant (an FYI: in a division, the term "sergeant" identifies ranks of sergeant E5, staff sergeant E6, platoon sergeant E7, master and first sergeant E8, and sergeant major and command sergeant major E9).

If the term is to be taken verbatim, then we're referring to a sergeant E5, who might be an E4 (corporal or specialist 4) acting-jack, or a freshly promoted specialist or corporal to hard-stripe E5. Smart folks, sure, but not necessarily into the "big picture" of life on this planet. Is he/she even on the front lines facing the immediate threat, or just sitting around a keyboard at base camp moping? Also, the reference is toward one (1) confused soldier out of a division (thousands).

Yes, the questions are good, but only to a media rep, in this case a rep for the all mighty Washington Post, who is apparently very unaware of the political games currently being played in Baghdad.

It's a mess, and the troops are in it for the duration. We know that. Europe knows that. North America knows that. Washington knows that. Even the stonewallers in Baghdad know that. Too bad the Post doesn't.

The question Baghdad's up and coming leaders need to answer is: How much longer are our people going to need to hang around babysitting their new regime?

The answer will likely be for at least another six months -- and possibly far longer.

I suppose we could just abandon them and see what happens -- again...

Dan