Thanks, luminesce, I appreciate your being here. And thanks for the history, Anandasubramanian. Thanks to teresa, the indefatiguable.

And thanks especially to virtue001 for torturing himself by being here all the time, that's the kind of dedication that keeps me going when things get tough.

Wow, a lot of people really didn't read the piece. Thanks to David Cohen and Amity, who did. James Levy, I'm an "amoral asshole" who vocally opposed the war from the start, back when there were risks to doing so. As I say multiple times in the piece, I disagree with Ricks' conclusion about staying until 2015; I'm just laying out, and respecting, his reporting and his arguments.

And nothing in the story has changed since it was published.

jlampkin, snap out of it and read the piece.

blunderdog, I give up. I'm explaining what he said. I'm critiquing it as well. I lay out the cost-benefit arguments, in terms of costs to soldiers and opportunity costs for the money we're not spending at home. I show how we're arming people who've killed and will kill again. If that's not good enough for you, go find an echo chamber where you never have to think about anyone else's point of view. I'm really happy I read Tom Ricks' book, even though I disagree with his conclusion.

jlampkin, fwiw, Ricks devotes a section to discussing this same controversy in "The Gamble." Col. Gian Gentile makes the point you do -- that his pre-surge troops had the same goals and methods as the surge troops; that what Petraeus mainly did was (dangerously) arm rival factions. Ricks seems to conclude it was unfair to say Petraeus didn't focus troops more on protecting Iraqis than killing them, although commanders like Gentile may have always been doing the right thing, that Petraeus and Co. definitely moved troops out of FOBs and into the communities, and comes down on the side that additional troops made some difference. But it's definitely debatable, and Ricks certainly gives massive credit for the surge's "success" in reducing violence and attacks on Americans to the controversial strategy of arming rival factions.

Thanks, jlampkin, I feel like we actually understand each other now. Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Thanks for your wisdom, The Fool. I hadn't noticed I was crying; I thought I was debating. I bet you say that to all the girls.

I hadn't remembered we had an earlier confrontation, my mistake, won't happen again. Fool me once, as they say. Good luck with your anonymous ranting about the "whining" of someone who signs her real name to controversial pieces, and respects her readers enough to debate them.

D. Elliott, thanks for your condescending letter. The Obama administration just backed the Bush-Cheney policy that prisoners at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan have no legal rights. I'll be blogging on that soon.

Really great point, Rocky, thanks. You forgot to add: "I'll be here all week! Tip the waiters!"

Have any US soldiers been tortured to death at Bagram? Just asking. Please read the Tim Golden piece, since I didn't link to anyplace you could directly screen "Taxi to the Dark Side."

Hi dyspeptic lawyer, thanks for weighing in, even though you're feeling so painfully dyspeptic!

Seriously, though, could they not have asked for more time to ponder? Did they really need to just deliver their two-sentence answer today? I do know -- I know you dyspeptic lawyers think we're stupid, we non-lawyers -- these are fearfully complicated issues, but...I think they've been slipping in these "Yes, your honor!" answers a little bit too much this month.

But you're much smarter than I am, obviously. If dyspeptic, which probably only proves your painful smarts. Also, it should be noted: all good things happen on Friday nights in DC, I have learned. As you well know!

Again, call me stupid, but if they were proud of this move, they'd have announced it Thursday morning.

It's so cute when people call me Joanie and don't call Glenn "Glennie." So cute, and so revealing.

I meant to say this before: happy to see you, I'd wondered where you went!

Thanks, everyone, for a mostly great discussion. I think I probably should have spelled out the difference between Guantanamo and Bagram more clearly in the post, but I still feel essentially the same way: Although there may not be an easy answer here for the Obama administration, the answer they gave was the wrong one -- unless, at the same time, they made clear they were going to tackle the larger rights issues, somehow, while not accepting that these prisoners are entitled to use the U.S. court system. Yes, it matters that much. Thanks, as always to ondelette for arguing on my behalf better than I could.

I have family in town and I'm not at the computer as much as usual.

Wow, ondelette and Eric Berry, great way to model respectful, engaged, passionate debate and dialogue. I'm really in awe. Thanks to both of you, and everyone else who contributed in the spirit of trying to understand.

tangerine, I should have included all of that in the post, thank you!

Yes, gehgoeson, I like it, but not as much as your existing screen name, knowing its history. tangerine, yes, facts are a comfort, thanks for sharing!

Readerreader, your gal had a good night, I've got to say. A star was certainly not born tonight, and I don't think charts could have saved Bobby.

gehgoeson, thank you! Also, GC is over on Open Salon under a different name (not sure I should give it away, but it's clear who he is!) but I am worried about klytus...he gave me hell during the primaries but I miss him...

gehgoeson, send me an email (jwalsh at salon dot com) and I'll send you to GC's Open blog...

For anyone in letters who still misses him (I know I do) Garry Owen is doing well, putting his amazing energies into his own life right now.