Instapundit had some nice war-related links today:

At least some Iraqi exiles are returning with good news, and are desperately worried we'll leave too soon.

This Instapundit article links up an interview with some returning US soldiers who say much the same thing... it's going better than we're being lead to believe, and the only real worry is we'll leave before the job is done. It also notes a significant descrepancy in reporting after the embedded guys pulled out.

Finally, this Lileks essay (scroll down to "The Strib") that deconstructs a "massive" Star Tribune editorial, wherein he makes many very good points, among them:

If Clinton had risen to the occasion, wiped out al-Qaeda, sent Marines to kick down the statues and put bullets in those filthy sons’ brainpans, this would be the most noble effort of our time. We would hear clear echoes of JFK’s call to bear any burden. FDR, Truman, Marshall Plan, forbearance, patience - the editorial pages of the land would absolutely brim with encouragement and optimism every damn day, because the good fight was being waged, and the right people were waging it.
...
Would the editorialists of the nation be happier if Saddam was still cutting checks to people who blew up not just our allies, but our own citizens? I’d like an answer. Please. Essay question: “Families of terrorists who blow up men, women and children, some of whom are Americans, no longer receive money from Saddam, because Saddam no longer rules Iraq. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Explain.” [emphasis original]

As always, read the whole thing before commenting, lest ye look like a landlubber (it's talk like a pirate day after all!)

Since I've managed to claim the war might be going well, criticized Clinton, and implied Bush might actually be doing some things right, I should have at least three juicy responses coming, probably claiming I'm 1) blind, 2) unfair, and 3) insensitive.

Perhaps. It doesn't make me any less right.

Update: Don't miss this article that takes a long hard look at France's policies and wishes in Iraq. It was a one-off sentence, but something I think should be highlighted, because I know some of you were really into getting the UN involved, and bring up Kosovo & Bosnia pretty regularly:

Speaking of backyards, France, under a UN mandate, couldn't take care of Bosnia, which is in Europe. American troops, under a NATO mandate, sorted it out. As usual. America also had to sustain the bulk of the effort in the 1999 Kosovo campaign.

I remember the press going on and on while Yugoslavia ate itself, and waiting and waiting for Europe to do something about it. All the while knowing who's blood and treasure would really need to be spent to get it done. As noted in the article, the real reason France (and Germany, IMO) wants a strong UN presence is simple, and not related to the wellbeing of the Iraqi people.