Thank you, Phillip Robertson, for risking your life to bring us a remarkable series of stories from this hellish place. I am ashamed of my complicity, as an American taxpayer, in the fear, death, and destruction that our leaders' actions have wrought.

I finally got around to renting "Farenheit 911" this past weekend (I know, I know, and I am a premium subscriber, too). I was moved by the scenes shot in Bagdad in the weeks before the invasion. I know they werew a snapshot that downplayed the oppressiveness of the Hussein regime, but to contrast the daily lives of Bagdadis then to what we read here is gut-wrenching.

Let HIM 'Look em in the eye' and give 'em all New SUV's, we can't sell them here.

MY/OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!

Thank you,

Astounding, Mr. Robertson has more GUTS than mr shrub.

Correct this is NOT Viet-Nam, and the Commanding Officer never goes out front to lead, unless he has courage. "Send that other mans' kid".

Thank you Phillip Robertson, your place of TRUTH is as assured as the journalism of Joseph Galloway, unfortunately, the Commanding Officer is NOT Lt. General Hal Moore (Ret), just a man who was a Lieutenant and could not be found outside the 'Green Zone'.

Then again let's 'look him in the eye' and give him a Sheep, for a JOB well dunce, Isaiah.

I am a bit disturbed by this article. As someone who has worked in Iraq as an independent journalist I just can't justify Robertson's need to write this story while putting yet another Iraqi at risk. It is always the question when thinking about returning: Will the benefits of getting the story override the possibility that the Iraqis I work with and any innocents who are in the area, be killed, tortured, or have their families be retaliated against because of my work? Will the benefits, if any, override the death, torture, or other hazards faced by Iraqis brought by my presence?

I think it fair to say that Robertson does not know if stray bullets aimed at him hit any innocent bystanders. Will Haidar now be targeted? Or his family? The economics of the situation - payment for interpreting services has been one of the higher paying jobs in Iraq for Iraqis - and the fact that foreign journalists get the choice to enter and leave Iraq while Iraqis are virtually imprisoned in their own country, make what amounts to no more than a personal “ya ya” account seem trivial and bordering on obscene.

It made me think back to the summer of 2004 when I listened to accounts from hotel employees at my unprotected, unbarricaded hotel in Baghdad who told me of independent journalists attempting to turn them on to smoking the opiated hash that flowed in from Afghanistan back then and drinking heavily into the night. One hotel employee, who had expressed he was happy that the invasion had rid Iraq of Saddam, said one of these independents repeatedly shouted at him telling him he didn't know what he was talking about. (The employee in question had spent time in Abu Graib under the American occupation, had stated he had been tortured, and had a visible uncontrollable nervous tic.) Indeed, the last I laid eyes on a different fellow independent (who on first introduction wanted to know where he could score) he was out in the street in front of my hotel querying Christian Iraqis as to how they felt about the nearby church bombings that had occurred the day before. Shortly thereafter he was kidnapped (and later released). I have wondered since if he was stoned at the time of his kidnapping, what was his true purpose in being in Iraq, and if the benefits of his work outweighed the risk he put to himself and to Iraqis.

I credit Robertson's courage to go back to Iraq at this time. It is not something I would choose to do at this time, especially since the last I was there, one too many close calls saw me come home a bit shaken. I suppose to write about how one didn't get the story is a thing to do and ending with the dangers of kidnapping in Iraq was a nice touch - especially since Robertson is back home to tell the tale. But the article is really more about Robertson than anyone or anything else (as many of his accounts tend to be) and it left me with many questions - number one on my list is: where is Haidar?

Seems to me like Robertson went out and did some damn fine investigative reporting. His earlier two pieces in this series were gripping reads that demonstrated an impressive degree of on-the-ground reporting and compassion and understanding for the daily tribulations of ordinary Iraqis. Robertson doesn't come off as the callous hotdogger you accuse him of being - let alone the stoned daytripper you allude to. Wonder why you would waste so much energy tearing down an excellent piece of reportage? Sour grapes maybe?

Thanks for a great story Salon - this kind of journalism makes up for all the "Cool Jews" & other fluff you've been catching so much stick for lately! Keep it up!

I'm sorry, but I found this article more than a bit creepy. It didn't communicate any information or analysis about the situation in Iraq. It didn't fill me in on important political or military developments. As far as I can tell, it was just a way of wallowing in the violence and fear of Baghdad for purely sensationalistic purposes. It all seemed to calculated to portray its author as someone with mutant-sized cojones, and to make sure we knew that he's, like, in the shit and we're not. This kind of posturing doesn't serve any real purpose, except to someone who wants to prove they're the 50 Cent of journalism. Gloryhounding and sensationalism are not what I turn to Salon for. I hope not to see any further examples of Baghdad terror porn gracing your pages.

What I see here is not bravery, it's much of what Iraqnaed sees. The person risking his life is not Robertson, but Haidar. Haidar risked his life, his family's life and the life of all these friends for a story that, fundamentaly, no one will care about or read.

Not only that, but in the process he lost what was probably his most expensive possession, his car. Did you reimburse him for the loss of his car, Mr. Roberston? Some how or another, I doubt it.

All you have done with this little adventure of yours is create yet another victim of the Iraqi cycle of violence. Naill Lynch is right, the only thing you have succeeded in creating is yet more 'terror porn' and you have successfully fed your ego. Reporting on yet more of what we already know about Iraq is not helpfull, it is not innovative journalism, it is not new and it is not surprising. Like in most sectarian conflicts, from Lebanon to the Philipines to Uganda and Cheneya, there are a thousand Abu Dereh or Sgt. Ahmeds. In a secterian war zone, reporting about this sort of thing is the journalistic equivelant of reporting about 'dog bites man'.

And for this you ruined someone's livelyhood and put them in physical danger. Congratulations on your bravery.