John F. Burns article in The New York Times on the uprising in Sadr City seems as good as anything I have seen thus far on the issue. Seven U.S. soldiers died in the battle with militia attached to the thirty-one year old ayatollah Moktada al-Sadr. This guy, who is suspected of other killings, should have been arrested last year. That this uprising is not good news is true enough, yet, I dont think that Burns comments in the news story, ("Together, the events in Falluja and the other cities on Sunday appeared likely to shake the American hold on Iraq more than anything since the invasion that toppled Saddam Husseins government last April 9." And later: "But on Sunday, Mr. Sadrs veiled threats to stir public disorder erupted into carefully orchestrated violence, with potentially dire implications over the long term for the Americans, and for Iraq.") are justified. That things are rough and, as has been said by all, are likely to get even more difficult before they get better, is true. But why does that led logically to such comments? It takes a certain turn of mind (i.e., one who has been opposed to the liberation of Iraq in the first place), to question the war every time a soldier is killed, or more than a half-dozen killed, or every time something doesnt go as well as it should under the best of circumstances. I regret this because such a turn of mind--over time--can have a corrosive effect on public opinion. We should stand fast. We have more friends than enemies.