I don't think that is an assumption at all. There are varying levels of dissent about the war yet they are all lumped together.
Clarify this please. My tiny brain does not compute.


Nice boogey man tactics. You just described the war with China, not Iraq. Sorry, suitcase bombs that destroy cities don't exist and never have.
#1 is a nuke in the West. Does it matter how it happened? Not really. You get the point. #2 is a chemical attack, which is far more likely and a real threat. I just loved carrying atropine and adrenaline in the 'stan. Want some?

But that's neither here nor there, what I'd like to do is stablize Iraq and have a discussion in public about what has/is happening without immediately being dismissed as a hippie.
Fine. Then let's discuss it factually. I'm always game for this one. Leave out conjecture, hyperbole, and party talking point catch phrases like neo-con, liberal elite, etc.

I can't speak for the author of that column, but one side deserves another.
Bro. The guy blames what he percieves to be a policy failure on U.S. Troops. That's messed up. They don't make policy, man. The administration does and the public votes yes or no. We can argue policy all day, but the troops do not make policy. They do what they are told, make the best decisions every day that they are capable of given their value system and military training, and try to survive. That's it.