A relentlessly negative assessement of Iraq that lacks any pretense at balance. Not a single positive development--such as the deals that have recently been brokered with insurgents--is even mentioned, much less put in context. Those who opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein seem determined to dismiss any positive aspect of his removal, free elections for example. And nothing is said of Saddam's million or so victims prior to the U.S. invasion (which carnage and torture certainly would have continued), nor of the benefits that accrued to the Iraqi people after sanctions were no longer necessary and medical supplies once again became available--prior to the invasions, all the left could talk about were claims that 500,000 ... More »

It predicts a need for itself, and then doesn't quite fulfill that need. Schwartz righly bemoans the dearth of reporting out of Iraq, but his own report dwells only on the worst conditions and worst locations. It is easy and somewhat justified for supporters of the war to criticize the report for not including positive things, such as, I don't know, schools being built or women being liberated. To expect the media to keep up a drumbeat of reports from Iraq when nothing much is changing seems like expecting too much. We need to be reminded in the face of "conservative" optimism that we have created a hostile state where only a hostile regime once was, and that our blundering has made a wider war more likely, and not less. ... More »

Yes, it gives a clear and truthful description of the conditions currently existing and a concise but with some detail history of what led to these conditions. Very interesting and informative.