This is actually very important journalism, if only because it publicizes the concerns of the very people who are paying the heaviest price for the war in Iraq--the soldiers and the families. Full disclosure: I had served with the Army, and know some of the servicepeople personally. That said, the article does not explore some of the obvious questions of what this means. Rumsfeld just was fired, and Gates has full responsibility for the Pentagon, even though he is travelling overseas (I believe Gates was in Saudi Arabia the day this broke). ALL officers, from the highest to the lowest, know their responsibilities in leading the troops. One has to suspect that what happened here was that some quick decisions were made, and put out to the press to deflect other administration woes, at the expense of doing the right thing by the troops. The average newspaper reader does not know the strains the families go through, as every day's evening news could bring them the worst news of their lives. The strain of living under those conditions is quite difficult. Moreover, in essence the extension means that the troops will be away from their families and their civilian jobs for two full years. The newspaper does not make clear that this is two years of 7 day a week operations, where any one moment could be your last. R&R is extremely limited. My concern is not so much with the Inquirer's news report, but of the relatively little news coverage of the families and their struggles, which, for security reasons, could be handled as a composite profile. It would have been better if it included more information on how the public could do things to support the troops.