He unfortunately editorializes or makes some problematic generalizations (e.g. "Almost everyone with power in the Middle East is at least financially corrupt to an extent."). I also felt title was a little deceptive, in that a major thrust of the piece concerns whether the Iraqi police and the Americans they work with feel the Americans need to stay in the area. Nevertheless, interesting and important first person reporting.

Totten has, in the past, reported *from the field* the bad and the good. He doesn't sugarcoat. This is important, if anecdotal news. It demonstrates that at least in this case it is possible to get a pretty professional police force in a city in Iraq. This is meaningful. He is reporting in the spirit of Ernie Pyle. Like it or not, he shares the dangers with the troops and reports what he sees and what they say. You could do way worse than read his archives and compare it to those who depend on 'local stringers' and stay in the Green Zone.

Very well-sourced reporting from the locations discussed in the article. The two cities covered represent a poor and a good situation, respectively, making the article unusually objective among reports from Iraq, which more often are colored by the ideology of the newspaper or other media outlet.

There is NO OTHER article about Ramadi which is better, or even as good, for Sep-Oct 2007. Neither news nor magazine. Michael Totten is there, reports interestingly what he sees and honestly what HE feels. Not biased, honest. Anybody who doesn't like this article should be comparing it to a "better" article. I haven't found any. The importance of cleanliness is an excellent, understated theme.

Great story about the success of one police station in Iraq. Totten links to an earlier story he wrote about a dysfunctional police station elsewhere in Iraq and compares the two.

Totten is an independent, his stories are not distorted by editors with axes to grind. He is honest, experienced, and risks his life to bring out the truth as he sees it. He is supported by his readers. He is not interested with quarterly results. I trust him. I've read him for a long time.

Really good article. Michael is churning out some of the best pieces from Iraq. He's an independant, and does not have an agenda other than relaying the facts, which he does in great detail. An amazing way to investigate a story - talk to people on the ground. I thought he was overly non-judgemental with the al-Queda prisoners, but that's me.