If our only objective was to avoid casualties, we would abandon Iraq. We have to risk increased casualties in the near term to achieve the mission and reduce casualties in the long term.

The near-real-time history being written hasn't been particularly kind to Rumsfeld.

As long as there is no government, Iraqis tend to view the situation as one of occupation.

If they're not ready to provide security, there could be a regression.

A lot of these tough choices are kind of kicked down the road.

The insurgency is still mounting an effort comparable to where they were a year ago. We do something we think will change things, but a month or two later casualties and the level of violence are back to where they were.