I hope you'll forgive me for this observation, but I learned as a child to a) take first-week news reports of any chaotic events with skepticism -- they usually have significant errors, at best; and b) be particularly dubious about the accuracy of war reporting, where events are particularly chaotic, many witnesses disappear, and people involved have vested interests in what they say to reporters and superiors.

I want to say upfront that, of course, today's Army is very different from that of the Vietnam era, but, nonetheless, some bureaucratic tendencies are timeless -- in particular, the need to respond to the pressures of one's political masters.

So I read reports of what happened on such and such a day in Iraq, regardless of the source, with a great deal of salt, and the suspicion that I might have a better idea of what happened a year or two later. And an even better idea ten years later.

In this case, as I was sure yesterday there would be, there are already diverging and contradictory assertions. See here, for example.

American forces killed 54 people in the intense firefight in the town of Samarra after soldiers delivering Iraqi currency to two banks were bombarded with small-arms and antitank-grenade fire, General Kimmitt, a senior military spokesman, said. He added that 22 attackers had been wounded and that one had been detained. On Sunday, the military put the number of Iraqis killed at 46.

[...]

The Associated Press quoted residents in Samarra as saying that American forces had responded by firing at random, prompting civilians to get guns and join the fight. The news agency said many civilians had expressed bitterness about recent American raids in the night.

Military officials said the clash was the largest battle in the country since coalition forces toppled the Hussein government last spring. They originally reported that at least 18 of the attackers had been wounded and 11 had been captured. General Kimmitt did not explain the discrepancies in the figures given on Sunday and today. No American deaths were reported.

[...]

. But residents and police officers in Samarra said that less than a dozen Iraqis had been killed and contended that many of the wounded were civilians, The A.P. reported from the scene. The residents were clearly incensed at the immense firepower used by the Americans.

Obviously, claims from the residents are scarcely to be accepted at face value, either. They have plenty of reason to be inaccurate or downright lies. My point is simply that I think it's wisest to reserve judgment, to at least some moderate degree, on the accuracy of immediate battle reports, particularly in the press.

I still have no idea which way this thing is going to go. I have hope, which I desperately want to turn out to be true, that it will turn out for the best, and we'll wind up suppressing the insurgency and creating a stable and friendly democratic Iraq. But I also have great fear that it might turn out any of thirty shittier scenarios. I just don't know.

My one consolation is that I think I have some grasp of knowing what I don't know.

Gary, I don't doubt that the initial report is inaccurate in certain details, or that it may be inaccurate in most details. But I still consider this good news, because the basic facts are unlikely to change: someone attacked a U.S. column and got their heads handed to them. That's a bad situation for the enemy, and it represents good work by U.S. troops for their success in countering the attack. If people learn that attacking Americans is a quick ticket to the morgue, we'll see a lot less of it.

This morning.

What if it turns out the version given by Iraqis herein is largely, or at least partially, true?

This isn't a war on a battlefield with only soldiers. This is a political battle to win hearts and minds. Killing enemy soldiers is, at best, not the sole measure. It may even be a counter-productive measure. If we convince ten Iraqis to hate us for every enemy we kill, what then? What if those are the basic facts?

Mind, I utterly hope this isn't the case. Damn, do I hope that. I'm just worrying.

If the Iraqi version is largely true, than we have a problem. That's a glib answer, but I think it's accurate; if U.S. forces were actually indiscriminately spraying fire about Samarra, then we need to do a lot better job of controlling the forces.

I happen to subscribe to the William T. Sherman theory when it comes to Islamofascism: we need to burn out the hotheads. There is a certain critical mass of people that we're going to end up having to kill in order to convince the enemy that the fight just isn't worth it. This doesn't mean indiscriminate slaughter, but rather the careful elimination of as many people who are interested in fighting us. If the math is that ten Iraqis come to hate for every one we kill, then we're beaten; there's no way around that math. But history suggests that your thesis won't hold water. People get tired of dying for nothing, and when the alternative is self-determination and freedom, I don't think the Islamofascists will be able to keep win the hearts and minds.

I surely hope you are correct.

As do I, my friend, though I'm open to other possibilities. But I fear we have few other viable alternatives. And almost as great a concern for me is that we may be slipping down the path of reduced civil liberties at home that will render success or failure against Islamofascism as unimportant.

"This doesn't mean indiscriminate slaughter, but rather the careful elimination of as many people who are interested in fighting us. "

Israel has been trying to do this for a while now, and they've gotten nothing but criticism from most of the world.

As will the United States. Heather, surely you're aware that the two most popular positions on Earth are anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. It doesn't matter to a big part of the world what we do (we includes Israel); we will always be wrong. We've got to base our actions on what we determine to be correct, regardless of what popular opinion might believe.

I agree with you (and with Israel) that we need to go after these people and get rid of them. But it will be interesting to see if the world issues as many condemnations against the US as they do against Israel for using the same tactics to stop terrorists.