Join Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks on Tuesday, Oct. 9 at noon ET to discuss the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials over what course to follow in Iraq, and whether people are sick of hearing about the war.

Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

More coverage of The War Over the War| War Over the War discussion transcripts

Tom Ricks' Inbox

Ricks has covered the U.S. military for The Washington Post since 2000. Until the end of 1999 he had the same beat at the Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for 17 years. His book, " Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" was published in July 2006.

____________________

Thomas E. Ricks: Are Americans tired of hearing about the war in Iraq? I have been hearing such comments lately. I suspect they may be right. The other day I heard about a television executive who said that movies about Iraq are failing because people just don't want to see them.

I don't blame people for feeling that way. Those in the antiwar camp seem to despair of having any effect on its course, despite having a majority of Americans in agreement with them, according to multiple polls. Last month Gen. David Petraeu described to Congress a course for staying in Iraq for many years, and he didn't get much comment -- let alone opposition -- from antiwar Democrats.

I also suspect that people who still support the war are tired of defending it, and many of them are unhappy with the state of events there, given that we have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II.

Here we are, perhaps only halfway through the war, and people are turning it off, even as Americans and Iraqis continue to die in Iraq. What does that mean -- for the war, for our politics, and for us as a people? I don't know. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

_______________________

Boston: You're not running for president like Hilary so hopefully you don't duck this hypothetical: If Robert Gates was Secretary of Defense in Bush's first term would we have gone to war in Iraq? It seems like he is one of the few responsible national security policy makers in the Bush administration where costs (soldiers, future generation's debt) and consequences (Iranian emergence, Al-Qaeda's reconstitution) are not fully assessed.

Thomas E. Ricks:

There's a song by, I think, Lyle Lovett called "If I Were the Man That You Wanted, I Would Not Be the Man That I Am."

That is to say, if Robert Gates were defense secretary in the 2003-vintage Bush Administration, then it wouldn't have been the Bush Administration that it was. One of Gates closest friends is Brent Scowcroft, also close friend to the current President Bush's father--yet hurled into the outer darkness by the current Bush White House for his opposition to invading Iraq.

I am struck that in recent months the Bush Administration has turned to the type of people whose counsel it rejected or neglected in 2002 and 2003--Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus, Secretary Gates.

_______________________

Crestwood, N.Y.: How would you respond to isolationists who say this sort of thing:"Sir, this whole surge business is ludicrous to me. We are fighting for political reconciliation, no? Reconciliation is going to happen just as soon as Gen. Thieu and Gen Giap go double-dating in Saigon, to use an historical analogy. In other words, never. This is all an elaborate exercise in face-saving. Why are we dragging this out? Both sides want to settle this in their own way, which will not be pretty, and they're hoarding weapons for that very purpose. Let the Iranians have it; they've earned it. And they'll take care of al-Qaeda in Iraq for us. Sounds like a good deal to me, given that the alternative is, well, none at all."

Your devastating rebuttal?

Thomas E. Ricks:

That's an argument.

Indeed, I have heard it offered by some officers in Iraq--that is, we should stand back and let these people have the full-blown civil war they seem so much to want.

I recall asking one general about that view, and his face kind of drained, and he said, That's just about the best recruiting poster al Qaeda could ever have.

His argument, as I understood it, was that people across the Middle East would blame the United States for whatever happened, and suspect that our plan all along was to go in and destroy Iraq.

_______________________

San Pedro, Calif.: Hello from California! I don't have a question, I just wanted to say thank you for setting people like Ken Adelman straight on "Meet the Press" a while back. That guy has some nerve showing his face on national television, don't you think?!

Thomas E. Ricks:

I don't want to attack Ken Adelman, but generally I am surprised by how some people who were so wrong about the Iraq war keep holding forth.

I am especially struck by the people who say, "Oh year, LAST year we were losing, but NOW we are winning." And they seem to say it year after year.

_______________________

Chicago: So Douglas Feith is "Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy" (whatever distinguished practitioner means) at Georgetown's School of Foreign Policy, and taught a course on Bush's War on Terror last spring. I tried to access the syllabus, but you need a Georgetown ID and password. What do you suppose Feith is teaching -- and does it cover how to avoid his own horrendous errors?

washingtonpost.com: Teaching Recent History From Opposite Perspectives (Post, May 7)

Thomas E. Ricks:

I was similarly curious. I asked him if I could sit in on the class and write about it, but he said he would only let me come on an off the record basis, which doesn't make it particularly useful.

Recently I was speaking to the Georgetown ROTC unit--that is, students who likely are going to be in Iraq in a year or two--about my book 'Fiasco' and suggested they invite him over to speak. I got the impression they weren't real interested.

_______________________

Bethel, Alaska: At one point you recommended Krepinevich's book, "The Army and Vietnam," and it's made for some unnerving recent reading. Thanks, I guess. Two questions, prompted by that book, about the surge:

One of Krepinevich's criticisms of the Army in Vietnam was that pacification and counterinsurgency depended on small units that got to know the areas they were pacifying, but the Army's large-unit, massive-firepower, regular-quick-rotation approach got in the way. Are we doing things the wrong way all over again in Iraq? Does the surge represent a change in policy towards smaller, more locally knowledgeable units?

Also, Krepinevich's book says that far too few of our troops in Vietnam were advisers, and being an adviser wasn't a good career path for career Army personnel. Has this changed in Iraq? That is, has advising Iraqi military forces (or police) become a hot ticket for good Army personnel seeking promotion?

Thomas E. Ricks: Good question! It's nice to know someone is paying attention out there to my reading suggestions.

--Yes, I do worry about the effects of rotations in Iraq. Nor do I understood the logic that says, 'Well, the troop increase worked, so we are going to start trimming troop levels.'

--No, I don't have the impression that the Army has made being an advisor a hot ticket job. People in the Army are aware of this problem. But as we all know, that's not the same as doing something about it.

_______________________

Thomas E. Ricks:

Uh-oh. Julie Tate, a Post national security researcher, just pointed out this article, on the Post website about half an hour ago. This isn't good:

Security Guards Open Fire in Iraq, Two Women Dead

Five Bombings Kill at Least 34

By Joshua Partlow and Howard Schneider

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, October 9, 2007; 11:38 AM

BAGHDAD, Oct. 9 - Two women were killed in central Baghdad on Tuesday, Iraqi police said, apparently when a private security company opened fire on their car after it approached a convoy they were guarding.

The identity of the company believed to be involved in the shooting was not immediately available, and few details were provided about the events leading up to the incident.

But amid ongoing controversy about the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqis last month by the Blackwater security firm, the new shootings are likely to heighten tension surrounding the thousands of armed security guards used by private companies and U.S. government agencies in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has called on the U.S. government to fire Blackwater from its job guarding State Department employees in the country. On Tuesday, the government demanded the firm pay the families of the 17 victims $8 million each.

According to preliminary reports by Iraqi police, the guards who opened fire on Tuesday were escorting a convoy of four vehicles through the Karrada neighborhood. A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said officials there were checking media reports of the shooting.

The women's white Oldsmobile, riddled with bullets across the hood and window, was seen by a Washington Post reporter outside the Karrada police station after the shooting.

Police said there had been two passengers in the back seat. It was not clear whether those other passengers were injured in the shooting.

Also Tuesday, twin suicide bombings targeting a local police chief and a Sunni sheik working with U.S. forces in an oil town north of Baghdad killed at least 19 people. Three bombings in the capital claimed the lives of at least 15 others, wire services reported.

The Associated Press said that the nearly simultaneous attacks in the northern oil hub of Beiji were the deadliest in a series of bombings in recent days, as insurgents apparently made good on their promised offensive to mark the latter part of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

The attackers drove a minibus laden with explosives into the house of a local police chief, the AP reported, and detonated an explosives-packed Toyota Land Cruiser outside the home of a leading member of the local Awakening Council, a group of Iraqis who have turned against extremists in the area.

A Sunni mosque about 100 yards away from the police chief's house was damaged and three of its guards were among at least 19 people killed, according to police and hospital officials. They also said 28 people were wounded and six houses destroyed in the blasts, which occurred within minutes of each other and some 500 yards apart.

Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information, told the wire service that the police chief, Col. Saad al-Nifoos, and the Sunni tribal official, Sheik Hamad al-Jibouri, survived. The U.S. military said the targeted Awakening Council leader was Samir Ibrahim, not Sheik Hamad. It said Ibrahim and the police chief had survived.

Beiji is in the Sunni province of Salahuddin, which along with the vast Anbar province to the west is part of Iraq's Sunni heartland. The heartland has been the home base for the Sunni-led insurgency, but the U.S. military has cited recent success in getting local tribal leaders to join forces against the terror network.

"This is yet another failed attempt to break the will of the Iraqi people who just want to go on with their lives without violence, raise their children, earn a living and coexist together in a peaceful manner," said Lt. Col. Michael O. Donnelly, military spokesman for northern Iraq.

Three car bombs in Baghdad killed 15 people, including eight who died in an attack near the Shiite Khulani mosque, itself a target of a truck bombing in June that killed 87 people, the AP reported.

In a separate outbreak of violence, drive-by shooters killed the deputy police chief in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, police said. A roadside bomb ripped through an outdoor market near a bus station in Jisr Diyala on Baghdad's southeastern outskirts, killing two civilians and wounding 10 others, police said.

In the southern neighborhood of Sadiyah, gunmen in a speeding car fatally shot a Shiite father and his two sons as they were leaving their home, police said. The police officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

The bullet-riddled bodies of three men in their 30s also were found on a highway in Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, apparent victims of so-called sectarian death squads largely run by Shiite militias.

Meanwhile, U.S. military said nine insurgents were killed and 21 suspects detained during operations Monday and Tuesday near Baghdad, Mosul, Beiji and Samarra. The operations were meant to disrupt al-Qaeda in Iraq networks.

Schneider reported from Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100900481.html?hpid=topnews

_______________________

Minneapolis: It seems like conservative Andrew Bacevich really hit the nail on the head with his recent criticism of David Petraeus -- if Petraeus were really serious about winning, he would have told Washington what was true but what no one wants to hear: that winning in Iraq would require more troops. And it is no excuse to say that the surge must die a natural death this spring for lack of troops -- as the AEI crowd explicitly has pointed out, the surge could be sustained and extended by mobilizing Guard and Reserve troops and by extending troops' stay in Iraq. Sure, that would be awful for them and political suicide for the Republicans, but Petraeus's job wasn't to perform political moves for the Republicans, it was to tell the truth. And in that task he seems to have failed. He simply did the political task the Bush administration wanted him to do: he said reassuring things to moderate Republicans in Congress.

washingtonpost.com: Sycophant Savior (American Conservative, Oct. 8)

Thomas E. Ricks:

Funny, I read that article by Professor Bacevich on the Metro commute home. I am not sure what I think of it. I have a lot of respect for him, and also for General Petraeus. (I know, I know, if you read the article you see it is tought to have it both ways.)

_______________________

Anonymous: Mr. Ricks, your book and a number of others, including "The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual," (put together by Gen. Petraeus) make it clear that the real key to winning a counterinsurgency is doing everything possible not to recruit enemies. That means fighting in a way that reduces indiscriminate shooting and taking care not to generate high volumes of civilian casualties.

On the ground, that will often mean, in ambiguous circumstances, asking questions first and shooting only later, which inevitably will mean more losses of your own soldiers in the short run because you will be subordinating "force protection" to "winning hearts and minds" (the hoped-for payoff is that it will win the war faster and net out to fewer friendly losses). That seems to be the point of view that informs the new strategy Petraeus is trying to implememnt.

But it seems to me that two factors (at least) militate against its success: firstly, Blackwater and other such fimrs have as a contractual obligation to put "force protection" above all else. Secondly, my experience as a soldier in Vietnam suggests that the longer soldiers trudge through death-drenched landscapes for increasingly elusive purposes, the stronger the gravitational pull toward an attitude of "F*** it -- just kill 'em all and let God sort it out." Your comments, please.

Thomas E. Ricks:

First, thanks for your service to the nation. And also for your good question.

The Haditha incident, in which as many as 24 Iraqi civilians were killed in Nov. 2005 by Marines whose convoy had just been bombed, underscores the problem you raise.

The answer to your question, I think, is military discipline and leadership. That's a tall order, but I think easier to achieve in the all-volunteer, professionalized military we have in Iraq than in the conscription-fed military we fielded in Vietnam. It is not uncommon in Iraq to see guys who are on their third, fourth or fifth tour of duty. Or for me to meet soldiers I've met before in Afghanistan, Somalia or Bosnia.

What we see is that the U.S. military has "gotten with the program" since November 2005, and commandes by and large now understand that their job is to protect the population and separate it from the insurgent. But yes, Blackwater and others seem to still by playing by the old book--force protection (or executing the contract) before everything else.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: This week was the first I realized that we had more paid mercenaries in Iraq than soldiers. It's fitting I suppose, given that this is a corporate war fought for corporate interests (better crude oil contracts for the petroleum industry -- though it doesn't look like that's working out quite as well as Mr. Cheney's oil cronies had hoped).

I'm wondering though how this fact plays with the Iraqi people in their attitudes toward the occupation. I suspect most cultures would endorse an unspoken axiom in war that if you have "right/morality" (or "God," or perhaps "fervent patriotic will") on your side, you don't need to pay for clinically dispassionate hired guns. Any perspectives?

Thomas E. Ricks:

No, I don't believe that is correct. Yes, there are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers, but most of those contractors are driving trucks, washing uniforms, or slinging eggs and hash in the DFACs (aka Mess Halls).

As far as I know, there are perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 security contractors--that is, triggerpullers or mercenaries. The U.S. military force is about 160,000, of which I would guess roughly 100,000 qualify as "triggerpullers"--that is, routinely carrying out combat or convoy missions outside the wire.

_______________________

Thomas E. Ricks: OK, there are a bunch of responses to my "tired of the war" question, so I will turn to them now.

_______________________

Chicago: Tom, I am beginning to experience Iraq War book fatigue, and I haven't even gotten to "Fiasco" yet. (Sorry.) I just finished "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" and am starting "Blood Money." (Already read "Cobra II" and Jon Lee Anderson's book.) I feel like this war is just going to meander on forever; the populace is sick of it, but not exercised about it enough to actually take to the streets. Every six months or so the Bush administration will throw us and the media a bone in the form of a Petraeus, and we will be called unpatriotic if we peep up in protest. Dems do not have the votes to end it; nobody has the courage to do anything, and thus a steady stream of American troops will die every month and nothing in Iraq will change substantively. I really do feel hopeless about it.

Thomas E. Ricks: Here's a comment that puts a finger on that sense of hopelessness I have begun to notice.

_______________________

Are Americans tired of hearing about the war in Iraq?: I'm tired of not hearing enough about it. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Sunnis and Shias lived and worked together and intermarried. Now they're killing each other and practicing self-partition by relocating to areas where their sect lives. How in holy hell can the U.S. military or U.S. government undo what is the effect of the actions of the U.S. military and government?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Some people are so angry they continue to pay rapt attention--

_______________________

Re: Tired of the war: Don't you think that if the troops who were there were draftees (i.e., more of America's children were involved in the war) it would be much harder to turn off -- and conversely, wouldn't that also spur a larger protests?

By the way, getting tired of a war seems to be the rule, not the exception. I was watching Ken Burns's extraordinary series on World War II, and as much as the country was involved in that war, when victory seemed near, then far again, Americans started to get weary -- in the end, some sort of conclusion must be in sight, I think, to forestall "wearness." Any thoughts on that?

Thomas E. Ricks:

I don't think World War II analogies are much use here. At any rate, by this point in World War II, the war had been over for almost a year.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Yesterday, the headlines told of top Iraqis who said they do not see "reconciliation" as a part of Iraq's future -- in other words, an admittance that national strife is part of the Iraqi's psyche. It is interesting that they understand this aspect of themselves, but having said that, doesn't that put to rest the idea that we are in Iraq to create an opportunity to "stabilize" the country so they can get on with forming a viable government etc.? In short, if the Iraqis' assessment is accurate (and there is no reason to believe otherwise -- for we have seen it first-hand) we no longer are fulfilling the mission that Bush has set out for keeping the troops in Iraq. Is anyone talking about this?

washingtonpost.com: Top Iraqis Pull Back From Key U.S. Goal (Post, Oct. 8)

Thomas E. Ricks:

Well, the Bush Administration would differ. It says some sort of accomodation or reconciliation not only is possible but is happening in a variety of ways, some unexpected.

That said, I bet we start hearing less from the powers that be about reconciliation and more about "Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems."

_______________________

Westcliffe, Colo.: Are any embedded Iraqis -- those who actually live there, not the ones on TV who live here -- writing magazine articles or books on the war, the insurgency, the U.S. forces' occupation, the likelihood for reconciliation, government perfidy, everyday life in the marketplace, employment, women's affairs? Just for starters. If so, why don't we hear about here in the land of 24-7 mainstream media news coverage?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Well, there have been a bunch of Iraqi bloggers, but some have left the country. I try to check in on them occasionally, but they make pretty depressing reading.

There also have been a couple of books, but nothing that knocked me out. Yale Univ. recently published "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace." I tried to read it but found it kind of dull.

Frankly, my favorite piece of work on how the occupation felt and looked to Iraqis is "Night Draws Near," by my Arabic-speaking colleague Anthony Shadid. But that is only about the very first part of the war. Maybe we can get him to update it!

_______________________

Re: al-Qaeda recruiting strategy: The conspiracy theory I hear from Arabs isn't that the U.S. wanted to destroy Iraq, it's that they want to own it and use it as a base to dominate and intimidate the region. Any evidence to the contrary?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Well, there are easier ways to do that. We already had U.S. troops based in Saudi Arabia. And if we got asked to leave, we also had bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Afghanistan.

_______________________

Bow, N.H.: It seems that the strain on the Army caused by the undimished op-tempo is like the weather -- everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it. There are occasional rumblihgs about reinstituting the draft (Rangel, Lute, etc.) but no action to do so. Isn't it irresponsible and dangterous for both the military and the nation's overall strategic posture to continue to stretch the Army when we have a mechanism available to us to alleviate some of the pressure? In addition, if you believe as I do that what public support still exists for the war would evaporate suddenly if the draft were activiated, doesn't that tell you that we have not spread the costs of the war properly, so that people are supporting it only because they do not have to bear those costs themselves?

Thomas E. Ricks:

I think if we re-instituted the draft that it would be very different from the Vietnam-era draft.

I think it would pull in a much smaller group every year, so getting drafted could be constructed a bit like the lottery. We might have a three-part draft:

--Get drafted for military service. If you serve a full term of say 2 years honorably, you get free college, free graduate school, and a discount on your home mortgage rate for the rest of your life.

--You don't believe in military service but still want to serve your country? Check the CO option and spend two years in a program that takes meals to elderly shut-ins, or cleans up the inner city, or puts you in the Peace Corps or Job Corps. In return you get free college.

--Third, the libertarian option. Libertarianism is a honorable tradition in our country. Check the third option and opt out of the draft altogether. But in return, get off Uncle Sam's back--no college loans, no home loans, etc. If you change your mind at age 50, fine--you can come in the miltiary and drive a general around for two years.

_______________________

Did you read the Los Angeles Times recently?: There was a column by the U.S. diplomat who was escorted around by Blackwater and was horrified at the way civilians were treated and the lack of any kind of empathy for Iraqi citizens, especially civilians. Well, if she was so horrified, why didn't she and other U.S. employees speak up, apply pressure, address their concerns to Condi et al? Or did they -- because nobody in positions of power in this administration cared from the beginning about Iraqi citizens/civilians? Thanks, these are the best chats.

washingtonpost.com: I survived Blackwater (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 6)

Thomas E. Ricks:

You're welcome. I read that column and was impressed by it.

I wrote about the problems caused by security contractors in my book 'Fiasco' (see pp. 37-73, "Corporate Mercenaries") but got little response to it.

_______________________

Moutn Rainier, Md.: Mr. Ricks, as a liberal Democrat, I'm getting war fatigue -- but not from the stories. I'm getting fatigued by my party's leaders claiming to want to end the conflcit but hiding behind political expediance to do nothing. I'm fatigued that those "leaders" are too scared to claim the national majority they have; I'm fatigued that they continue to believe cutting off funding for a war that's going nowhere is "being soft on terrorism." I'm fatigued by America's media still not going after our elected "leaders" to pin them down on tough questions when the "leader" deflects or fails to answer. I'm fatigued most by all the power that has been amassed by the administration under theguise of war -- and how few Americans, politicians, or media outlets seem to want to fight back. So yes, the war is wearing thin -- but only in that it serves as a focal point for so many other things.

Thomas E. Ricks:

Here is another interesting comment on war fatigue.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.:"I don't think World War II analogies are much use here. At any rate, by this point in World War II, the war had been over for almost a year." World War II started in September, 1939. American involvment didn't begin until 1941. I think it does a diservice to the British, French and Poles to date World War II from the start of American involvement.

Thomas E. Ricks:

Good point. I should have said I was talking about American participation in World War II.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: My thoughts on your lead-off question are that no matter what happens in Iraq, Bush and his backers have won. By repeated deception aided by the incurious media (present company excepted) Bush has convinced the American people they don't count here in the greatest democracy in the world. That is a great achievement for the elites who run America -- because as people give up and turn away from what is happening, Bush is enabled to do anything he wants in Iraq, Iran or anywhere else. He has broken our trust in our government, which I believe is his desire. As fewer people in the public pay attention, our rulers can clean out the domestic henhouse to their hearts' content.

Thomas E. Ricks:

Another interesting fatigue comment:

_______________________

Kingston, Ontario: On the hopelessness question: Christopher Hitchens once wrote that the U.S. had an imperialist foreign poicy and an isolationist culture. This seems to mean that Americans expect to dominate the world without being particuarly interested in it. "Abroad" is just so far off that your countrymen feel able to ignore it and focus on local traditions like Halloween when the foreign news is unedifying. Added to that is the fact that few Americans outside the military are feeling the pinch -- no draft, no war taxation. So perhaps a part of what you describe is just the indifference that America's geographical isolation makes possible.

Thomas E. Ricks:

Christopher Hitchens impresses me enormously in his ability to sound persuasive while being utterly wrong.

The fact is that many Americans know quite a lot about the world, having been born out there. The country is populated in large part by people trying to get away from some other part of the world.

_______________________

Puts a finger on that sense of hopelessness I have begun to notice: If a sense of hopelessness has made a majority of Americans tired about hearing of the war in Iraq, this nation is in very serious trouble -- not from an enemy without, but surely from an enemy within.

Thomas E. Ricks: Another comment--

_______________________

Minneapolis: Hi Tom -- just a comment on why no one cares about the war. I teach college students and I hear frequently that they feel absolutely no connection with what's going on over there -- no particular opposition to it, but no support, either. I think that's how most American people feel as well, which is why no one is listening to Bush, but no one is stepping up to mount any real opposition. We're stuck in this netherworld of "oh, right, there's a war, isn't there?" What to do to change that and make something happen -- another question for which there does not seem to be answers.

Thomas E. Ricks:

Yeah, but that remoteness has always been the case with the war. It always has been a "one percent war" that doesn't affect most of us.

But it is just in the last month or so that I have begun to sense this profound fatigue amounting almost to a stupor.

_______________________

Ogden, Utah: Tom -- a friend of mine borrowed your book but returned it unread. "Every time i start it makes me want to kick the dogs," he said. My observation: Your question at the start of this chat misses one obvious scenario about why interest in the war seems to be waning -- the war never had any good underpinnings. The American people have figured out that, despite the hype, they are not really in any danger from whatever it is is going on in Iraq. Absent any feeling of actual physical danger, why stay focused on what has become, pretty much, an intellectual exercise in justification?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Ogden! You live near various relatives of mine. (If you go up to the top of Logan Canyon, there is a spring named "Ricks Spring"--although the Utah highway department has mistakenly labelled it "Rick's Spring.")

Your friend suffers from what I call "McCain Syndrome." The senator told me that he was fascinated by 'Fiasco' but had to slame it down every few minutes. He did get through it, though, and your friend can too!

As for your comment--if people beleived the war never had any good underpinnings, then wouldn't they do something about it?

_______________________

Richmond, Va.:"Are Americans tired of hearing about the war in Iraq? I have been hearing such comments lately. I suspect they may be right. The other day I heard about a television executive who said that movies about Iraq are failing because people just don't want to see them."

It is clear that President Bush intends to execute the war as he sees fit and the Democratic congressional leadership doesn't have the votes necessary to truly alter policy. What's interesting recently is that it appears that the leading Democratic presidental candidates aren't willing to commit to a timetable for withdrawl either. I think everyone is marking time until January 2008, at which point the expectation is that there will be a true strategic reassessment of what we should do in Iraq.

Thomas E. Ricks: Another comment--

_______________________

Thomas E. Ricks: To correct an earlier typo on page numbers in 'Fiasco':

Thomas E. Ricks:

You're welcome. I read that column and was impressed by it.

I wrote about the problems caused by security contractors in my book 'Fiasco' (see pp. 370-73, "Corporate Mercenaries") but got little response to it.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: Do you worry about what will happen when/if the American mercenary "trigger pullers" come home? These are highly trained killers who have been a law unto themsleves while in Iraq. How easy will it be for them to adjust to a civilian life in which killing people to alleviate a traffic jam is frowned upon by the authorities?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Yes, I do worry about this. I think the mercenaries have far less of a social safety net than do active duty military types. The Army especially has learned to look out for people. That's very different from just going back into civilian society. (I've heard some Army Reservists mention similar problems in that area.)

I also worry about the foreign triggerpullers--a lot of the security contractors in Iraq are from Peru, El Salvador, Nepal and other countries. Nepal has a tradition of sending its men to be soldiers elsewhere, so presumably is accustomed to returning vets. But what will it mean to have 1,000 former mercenaries injected into the society of, say, Salvador?

_______________________

Anonymous: Just a comment: You cover an awful lot of questions an territory in these chats. Thank you, but who do you think you are, Desson Thomson or somebody?

Thomas E. Ricks:

I think if I were transformed into a Post movie reviewer I'd come out more like Stephen Hunter. His novels sell more in a week than my novel has sold in its history.

_______________________

War fatigue: I am utterly bewildered that people could be indifferent to this war. Exausted by it, sure, but indifferent? I can't imagine. The only person I know who has served in Iraq is a friend of my cousin, and I haven't seen him in twelve years, But I opposed this war from the start and continue to do so with every fiber of my being. I am worn out by the ineffectuality of my (default) party, by the "reasonable Republicans" who hint that they're really, really, finally going to do something about this and then don't (Warner most notably but not exclusively) and by pundits who say the only hope for anything getting better is to put our hope in "moderates" like Warner (Broder most notably but not exclusively).

Thomas E. Ricks:

Another comment, with an interesting distinction--exhausted but not indifferent.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Hello Mr. Ricks. My attitude is that as long as our forces in Iraq are fighting, dying, taking casualties, sweating and getting worn down, the least I can do as an American who is not asked by our government to sacrifice for this conflict is to continue to pay attention. No one is more war-weary than our troops.

Thomas E. Ricks:

good comment--paying attention as a patriotic duty--

_______________________

Lodi, N.Y.: On funding the war: Seriously, how long can the United States spend $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion a week in Iraq?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Thomas Friedman had a good column about this a couple of days ago, saying we were essentially putting the war on a credit card.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I've just started reading "Fiasco" -- thank you for telling that story. What I've read so far has changed my perspective on the role of different parts of the military in this "adventure." Question -- do you know of anyone who has put together the story of the use of government contracts to support this war? I imagine the Blackwater story is just one of many out there that the public should know about.

Thomas E. Ricks:

It is much easier to get information about the US military and its operations than about contractors. But Congress has subpeona power--and also approves the funding. So I think we may get some more information here than we did in the first few years of the war.

_______________________

The American people have figured out that, despite the hype, they are not really in any danger from whatever it is is going on in Iraq.: How foolish a belief. Tens of thousands dead or brutally wounded young Americans and $1 trillion taxpayer dollars if all troops came home now. A self-fulfilling prophecy for al-Qaeda and bin Laden that has added god knows how many true believers to his cause. A training groung for terrorists to learn death and mayhem on the job. Americans in no danger from Iraq?

Thomas E. Ricks:

Another comment. But if this is the case, why are people simply turning away from the war?

_______________________

Ogden, Utah: Ricks instead of Rick's? I'll get right on it. You said "As for your comment -- if people beleived the war never had any good underpinnings, then wouldn't they do something about it?" Well, we did -- we voted the dems in last year and nothing happened. The New York Times has an article again today saying they don't want to hinder wiretapping because it will let them, again, be accused of being soft on terrorism. So, with gutless wonders everwhere, what can we do? Really?

washingtonpost.com: Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers (New York Times, Oct. 8)

Thomas E. Ricks:

A follow up from Ogden--

_______________________

Thomas E. Ricks: Time for lunch!

Thanks for all your questions. Your comments on "war fatigue" are thought provoking. I am going to talk to my boss about having the Post look more at this subject.

_______________________

Dunn Loring, Va.: You stated: "The other day I heard about a television executive who said that movies about Iraq are failing because people just don't want to see them." Could the problem be that most Americans don't want to see movies that portray our troops negatively because they don't share your view that our troops are mercenaries?

Thomas E. Ricks: I wasn't calling our troops mercenaries. Far from it. I was calling private security contractors mercenaries.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.