Aside from one clanging editorial goof, this NYTimes op-ed explains how it isn't just the Democrats using soldiers to score political points.

Administrations have done stupid/weird/dangerous/deadly things during war to ensure their re-election since at least Lincoln's day. It's the price you pay for having leaders who must convince millions of people not to fire them. This, of course, doesn't make it any less irritating.

The author tries hard to draw parallels with Vietnam, but there are distinct differences. Most of all, while the civilian beuracracy is cocking it up like they always do, the soldiers are at least being allowed to innovate and affect change on their own. Just because you've been trained to clean latrines doesn't mean you can't learn how to build them.

Update Write negative stuff about the occupation and you'll get your op-ed where the whole world will see it. Positive news, of course, is relegated to known cheerleading groups (when it's shown at all) or insignificant web logs.