this may seem like an old question beyond debate, but I respectfully disagree. I still consider it to be the worst decision made in our occupation of Iraq. And when I read wishy wash crap like this I feel sick. There is a sliver of truth in the author's opportunist article, and that is that the Iraqi Army was rotten to the core. That, for quite a bit of the senior leadership, is quite true, perhaps even for a good number of the enlisted leadership as well. Nevertheless, there are good NCO's in almost any army, even enemy ones, and to discount their likely contribution to the defense of their homeland against Iranian/Syrian/Jihadist forces is a serious mistake. We sent hundreds of thousands of men with weapons training (and weapons) home with no contact, no promise of future work, no offer of assistance. Big, big mistake, one our guys are now paying for. I can argue with opinions and viewpoints, but JON LEE ANDERSON, a journalist who was in Iraq before, during and after the invasion (on his own, not embedded or alligned with Saddam) cooly shows the truth of this mistake and others in an article from the New Yorker, which offers pointed advice to the Bush administration on how to deal with the insurgency. This is a journalist who wants the US to succeed in Iraq, if nothing more than to help the Iraqis succeed. He was in Afghanistan right after 9/11 as well, and the book he wrote about his experiences there with Northern Alliance forces was a fair, detail-rich portrayal of the liberation of Afghanistan. So was his more recent book, the Fall Of Baghdad, which was also fair and detail-rich, without being anti or pro-American to a fault.