A good response. Rare to see any response lately that isn't overflowing with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Troop density makes a difference if troops are allowed to fight. If you have shackled your own people, it isn't going to matter that much if there are five or fifty on a street corner. Once people see that they aren't going to actually shoot anyone, it isn't going to matter.

From the very beginning, and this includes Afghanistan, it was obvious that we were trying to soft-pedal the entire military effort, to minimize civilian casualties, minimize U.S. casualties, and try desperately to convince Afghanistan, Iraq, and the anti-war factions at home that we were just applying a little leverage here and there, and that we would be leaving the rest up to them.

Even from some Iraqis, I heard at the beginning that the biggest problem with the U.S. invasion was that they didn't go far enough, and land hard enough on the country. Maybe we SHOULD have shot looters. Maybe we should have killed Sadr and the rest of his goons after his first uprising, and fought that war before the elections, instead of kicking it down the road to now. Maybe we should have made an example out of Fallujah the first time around instead of trying to shove local authorities into the breach.

We flattened Germany and Japan, and then hauled their stunned and helpless populations back up out of the rubble. I watched the bombing of Baghdad on TV. The city was brightly lit, and I saw cars moving unhurriedly back and forth on the highway in the foreground as flashes lit up the sky from precision attacks on small sections of the city. Compare this to the Blitz in London, or WWII bombings of Germany and Japan. Surgical strikes. War Lite.

Seemed like a good idea at the time. We didn't destroy Iraq, which nobody really wanted, but on the other hand, we didn't defeat Iraq either.

Compare to the bombing of Tokyo in WWII.