Peter Maas has a lengthy article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine called "’Good Kills.’" Although you will see that--in my opinion, at least--it’s intended to chastize the Marines for killing civilians at the battle for Diyala bridge into Baghdad, it is in fact a good detailed story of some very heavy close combat. He implies that the strategy of the Third Battalion, Fourth Marines ("kill every fighter who refuses to surrender") was somehow questionable, and that the "raw military might, humans killing humans" was shocking both in theory and in application. I disagree, and even if everything he writes about the battle is true, the Marines did everything right, by my account. Furthermore, I am impressed both by their fighting ability, their commander’s understanding of combat, and their restraint. Yet, you will glean the author’s purpose from the last few paragraphs of the article.