Here.

It's important to understand why I think battalion commanders — especially infantry commanders — are the best bet for unmitigated truth coming from just the right places on the ground; they are the best bet because they have SA: Situational Awareness. Good journalists don’t go around interviewing privates and young sergeants about strategic situations because privates and young sergeants don't know what they are talking about. I know. I was both.

Also, you don’t want to rely heavily on people who are too high ranking, because they can be too politically compromised.

Discerning which officers to talk to is rather like the story of the three bears: Some beds are too big, some beds are too small, but one bed is just right. For this report, the fairy tale translates into something like this: company commander (captain; too small for purposes of the upcoming report); battalion command (lieutenant colonel; just right); brigade commander (colonel; getting too large, but usually is also a good interview); division commander (major general; too large).

The "just right" place is battalion commander, or "BC." The BC typically will interact with Iraqis six to seven days per week. The BC will be outside the base and downtown just about daily, so he is not insulated. He is interacting, but he also is exposed to higher-level information and goings-on. An infantry BC might command about 700 soldiers, and his responsibilities are vast because they begin and end with life and death. A BC will see Iraqis get killed due to policy decisions, and moreover he will see his own people get injured or killed. Any BC who had tolerance for B.S. before the war tends to have it sandblasted away. Being in combat personally, and having to explain to parents at home why their son or daughter was injured or killed, can have that abrasive effect.