There are days when I start to think that the war in Iraq is a bit of a political Rorschach test: What you see when you look at it says more about you than it does about the war itself. That's why I can take a look at the war and see a disastrous burden, while my friend Ben looks at it and sees the possibility -- and necessity -- of success.

America can't succeed in Iraq, even in the face of tactical (if not strategic) victory. It's impossible. No matter what happens, no matter how many insurgents we capture or kill, it's just a lost cause. Don't take my word for it. According to New York Times columnist Frank Rich, the United States just experienced its Tet Offensive in Basra and "no one cared."

It's become apparent in recent weeks that perhaps the reductions in Iraqi violence brought about -- in part -- by the surge may have been illusory. Now comes Steven Simon to suggest the surge has, ultimately, made it harder to create a stable and peaceful Iraq.

The New York Times reminds us today that the Army is in danger of cracking up over the strain of the Iraq war.

The New York Times is reporting that Gen. David Petraeus might be given command of NATO. This perplexes me, for two reasons:

* During America's previous modern wars, there has not been the frequent shuffling of commanders while the war was going on. World War II was Ike's war, at least in Europe. Westmoreland had Vietnam, until it was clear it was time to move him out. But it seems as though the Army is sticking with peacetime promotion habits. Am I right about this? And if so: Is this smart?