Thanks, Rae.

And thank you Major Bellon, and all the Marines.

Hi.

"Without bluster, I can tell you that the Marines were on the verge of breaking the enemy's back right before the cessation of offensive operations was ordered."

This is either the same old story and a disaster, or a completely new thing.

Old thinking: The Americans said that they would make a decisive response to the treatment of their dead (the contractors), and then they didn't follow through to the finish on their assurance, which is a defeat; and they stopped their attack with the enemy standing in possession of their piece of the field, which is defeat; and they negotiated after they said they would not negotiate any more with terrorists or their surrogates, which seems like a big and humiliating defeat; and worst of all they were stopped not by weapons and ammunition the enemy might run out of but by words, of which our gabby and endlessly dishonest enemies have an endless supply. The bad guys retain their own piece of the field, so they count the bodies and of course lie, accusing the Americans of atrocities. Which only idiots will believe, but the world is full of idiots. And besides, the longer there's an unresolved situation the longer the bad guys can distort it. Giving the enemy the whip hand in the propaganda war was a defeat. And there are no more formidable warriors than U.S. Marines, so we cannot solve this by sending in the A Team. The A Team is already there, stalled, talked to a standstill.

New thinking: We hold ourselves to higher standards now. The diplomacy is necessary. When time has passed and our adrenaline has gone away, we see our moral obligations more clearly. We have to save lives and encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility and ownership of their own destiny. [Though they seem to like us less and less.] "We cannot tell them on one hand that they need to take charge and prevent violence among their people and on the other stiff arm them whenever we want to [raze] a city."

Oh jeez. This is a step beyond sainthood, beyond the mercy of angels. Not only don't I know who has prospered before through doctrine like this, I don't know who has really, seriously attempted it.

Even Saint Joan insisted on promptly taking the targets she thought were critical, "by love or by courage or by force" (by propaganda and negotiation, by manoeuvre and bravado, or by attrition). Not even a saint would hold back from striking the fatal blow at the critical moment.

Either this is a new military turning point, at which pulling our punches even against terrorists proves to be the highest form of modern warfare, or old-fashioned attitudes are still valid, and we are following a long tradition of guys (like the French navy) who came up with all kinds of sophisticated concepts (as opposed to just sinking the enemy, like the English were doing) and paid bitterly for it.

I can't help thinking: I can see a military revolution based on new technology, like the network-centric armed force. But this isn't like that, it's based on how people are going to react to restraint, to the non-consummation of victory, when it was promised and there to be had. So it's about human nature.

Are we really looking at a transformation of human nature, or an appreciation of an unchanging human nature that nobody ever mapped correctly before?

Even if these things are possible, are Muslim nations in the Middle East now the right places to find this new and gentler human nature, or the right places to demonstrate what was always true but nobody before knew about the credit you can get for breaking off what would have been a winning battle? I can't think of a less promising culture in which to sell the idea that if infidels fail to KO Muslim warriors, it proves that those who failed to finish their job are the side that you want to be on.

But ... speculating from Sydney Australia is worthless. To know the answers to these questions, you'd have to be there and look in people's eyes, and form an opinion. Is this rallying people to the cause of democracy, or not? Because if it does, if pro-democracy Iraqis do fight boldly because of this, in sufficient numbers ... problem solved.

I can't tell you how sincerely and un-sarcastically I am hoping you guys turn out to be right and your restraint is repaid. Whether it works or not, you guys are heroes.

Wishing you every possible success and safety, and thanks again for your mighty efforts for us all,

David Blue

Hi, David, and thanks for reading and commenting. Readers are always welcome; commentors even more adored.

I think you have answered yourself well with this: "To know the answers to these questions, you'd have to be there and look in people's eyes, and form an opinion." The one who wrote the letter is one who is "there"; looking into people's eyes (if they don't kill him first). Dave may have his own opinions, but his obligation is to obey his superiors and honorably, successfully, and swiftly carry out their orders. He has tremendous respect for those in leadership and has an even greater burden for the men whose lives he feels accountable. It must be a very challenging thing to balance.

I personally hoped that they would kill every enemy in site (spelled the way I intended); however, I make my opinons sitting here at my computer where my biggest dilema of the day is whether or not to attend a Shakepeare play cast party that has been rescheduled more times than John Kerry has changed his voting record. I do not carry the weight of thousands of U.S. Marines and Army Soldiers lives (and the many more they represent) on my shoulders. I don't think we can understand as we are not privy to all or the same information as those making the decisions.

Thank you, also, for your thoughts and well-wishes for our country and servicemen. I especially appreciate your sincerity and agree with yuo in that the outcome of this war affects not just the those involved directly in it, but the world community.

Please come again.