The inevitable outbreaks of violence and dissension in Iraq are obviously worth covering and important news. But there's an under-current of complete gloom in news reports that seems to me to be more fueled by ideological fervor than sober analysis.

Given the magnitude and complexity of the task of rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq, it seems to me we're making slow but decent progress. The lack of a complete social implosion or exploding civil war is itself a huge achievement. And no one said the post-war reconstruction was going to be easy.

Also, let's keep in mind that the objective in Iraq was to take away from terrorists another state that provides/would provide succor and support. After Afghanistan and Iraq, where will the rats flee to next? Iran? Things are getting kind of shaky for the mullahs there. Syria? I think Assad is getting the message that state-supported terrorism isn't good for one's resume.

So what's behind this drumbeat of apocalypse? I think it's a good rule among boomer journalists that every story they ever edit or write or film about warfare will at some point be squeezed into a Vietnam prism. The modern military has denied these people the chance to be vindicated during actual combat; so they will try and present the occupation in exactly the same light.

Yes, there is probably considerable discontent in Iraq right now; yes, every death is awful; but no, this isn't even close to being combat; let alone Vietnam. Of course, I won't be completely certain about this until Johnny Apple writes a front-page NYT news analysis piece laying out the new consensus. Tick, tock. Or is he too busy touring Devon? [I love Sullivan's sarcasm.]