You're far too kind: The guy reverts to the emotional maturity of a boy entering puberty whenever anyone suggests Iraq might not be a total catastrophe.

It's amazing to think that his real job was supposed to be impartially reporting on the war.

... appears to be on your side here, Dr. Feaver. If I can digress, the few non-partisan pragmatists left in the foreign policy community recognized long ago that the Bush administration's mishaps in Iraq had been matched or exceeded in ignorance by the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-logic fervor that spread across the Left beginning in 2004-05. From someone who was only tangentially attached the Right before the war it was extremely disappointing to see their only opposition intellectually implode just as I lost faith in the Republican Party. They proved they can be just as petty, ideological, and narrow-minded as the "hard right," only they -- with their ivy-league educations -- can't legitimately claim ignorance. (See: our troops are making things worse -- only when they leave will things get better, the only way out of this is a regional/diplomatic solution with Iraq's neighbors, this war is lost, we must break Iraq up into three countries, the surge will never work, etc). On the other hand both sides actions since 2003 makes one realize how poisonous and counterproductive politics is vis a vis policy, and that those infatuated with the former cannot be trusted to conduct the latter.

As to your exchange with Mr. Ricks, suffice to say anyone who still uses "nice job, W!" as the punch line in an article, essay, blog post, or passing thought, doesnt deserve a serious response -- even if they have done a more than commendable job reporting in their previous life.

jms180 wrote
"pragmatists left in the foreign policy community recognized long ago that the Bush administration's mishaps in Iraq had been matched or exceeded in ignorance by the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-logic fervor that spread across the Left beginning in 2004-05."

The problem with this argument is that the "mishaps" of the Bush administration had actual effects upon the U.S. forces and Iraqis. The anti-Bush camp just talked a bunch, but had no influence on policy. The U.S. has spent $50 billion in Iraq and according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction the one thing we got out of it was a rebuilt Iraqi army. The reconstruction goals failed. That was due to the faulty assumptions and lack of coordination in the White House for dealing with post-war Iraq that lasted all the way up to the end of 2006. Can this "mishap" be matched by the anti-Bush camp? I think not.

They love to dish it out (often with no footnotes or id'd sources) yet cannot seem to bear counters, friendly give and take or open questioning. Kinda like Dr Fred Kaplan.

We haven't had a President fail the country as badly as George W. Bush did, or in as many ways as George W. Bush did, in a while. I imagine some people who worked in the Buchanan and Harding administrations also felt aggrieved that later critics didn't recognize they were doing the best they could, appreciate their accomplishments or acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes. But these people are all long gone now, so former officials in President Bush's administration are having to find their own ways of bearing the burden of their association with him.

My advice is to suck it up and tough it out. The Republican Party will be a permanent, out of power minority party as long as it is seen by the public as George Bush's party. So from a purely partisan viewpoint public defenses of Bush's decisions now are about as useful as arguments that Watergate was, too, just a third-rate burglary would have been during mid-1970s. Is that fair to everyone who worked in his administration? Is life fair? No administration in recent history has had as many damage control assignments dumped on its desk as President Obama's; I imagine its officials probably look askance at "umpires" from the last admininstration offering guidance as to the resolution of problems they helped cause in the first place, and wonder if that's quite fair.

I don't disagree with your point that, fairly or unfairly, many Americans will associate the GOP with the incompetence that characterized the early years of the Iraq war, Katrina, etc. But Thomas Ricks is supposed to be an objective analyst and should be able to separate himself from partisan viewpoints and a mainstream narrative to assess the Bush administration. His use of "kool aid, nice job W" and similar cliches - used regularly in his posts - seems more appropriate for a more childish segment of the blogosphere. I'm a fan of his work, but frankly, his posts are a bit disappointing.

Regarding J Thomas's comment, if you actually read Feaver's original post and Biddle's essay that he cited, you'd see that neither suggested the U.S. remain in Iraq against the wishes of the national government and occupy the country in a West Bank/Hungary-like scenario. Biddle specifically says that the U.S. should renegotiate the SOFA with Baghdad if the security situation worsens, noting that the Maliki government was under political pressure to demand a near withdrawal date in the SOFA due to the upcoming elections. I guess he's an idiot too.

No, Dr. Feaver, your link to Zakaria was not made with a sense of irony; it was made in an attempt to bolster your argument by citing someone who might be a particularly credible optimist - not the same thing.

What is ironic is the plaintive request to be seen as an impartial umpire, who would never recklessly use the V word, when in fact you were previously one of the most important cheerleaders for the war and not at all shy about projecting victory.

You are not a credible umpire on Iraq, as your SG posts make clear; please face this reality. For what it's worth, I accept that I am not either.