"When Fallujah was being invaded in April, the Left was screaming about the civilians, the damage, and the horrible Americans wreaking carnage. We pulled out, and tried the "soft" approach."

Hand on your heart, do you really think we tries the soft approach because the "left was screaming"? "

Nope. I would say it was a political decision by Iraqi leadership which had the most influence. I think the US miltary leadership, thought the idea probably wouldn't work, but faced with the "screaming Left" and the Iraq leadership (predictable desire) to try to "kick the problem further down the road", and a very slim possiblity that it might actually be resolved this way; the miltary decided to err on the side of the judement of people who were soon to become the sovereign power in Iraq.

"I'm probably closer to your viewpoint than Lindy's on why we're there and why we're staying.
But I'm about as far from you as I can get in the vehemence department.
Sometimes I think that your greatest joy will not be the liberation of Iraq and a new beginning for democracy, but just so you can say "Yar boo sucks to you" to the "left". "

We already have a new beginning for democracy in Iraq. The election in Jan 30 will be a lot more nails for the terrorist's coffin. But it won't be the end of these guys, nor even without the terrorist existing, it wouldn't mean that Iraq was safely on the road to Democracy. More elections are needed and the transfer of power from the results of an election needs to become the expected norm. I think what's needed to completely "wipeout" the terrorist will be something in the order of the "grace of God"- and obviously, this is not within our power to make happen. But I don't think this is neccessary because we can slug this out and do what we humanly can do what to bring about freedom in the Middle east, but this will take time and will go through lots of up and downs. Steady improvement is important and we are getting steady improvement by any measure, unless one is blind to reality.