Far graver than Vietnam?

By what standards of measurement?

By the standards of the trouble it’s getting us into downstream. The Vietnam War itself was a disaster, but once it was over, it was over.

Are any of those quotes from people who are actually active and in the loop? Doesn't look like it. There's a lot of hear-say in there too. I'd like to see something with better sources.

Unfortunately, in the real world the choices seem to be anonymous sources "on background", or named sources that only have their connections and experience to draw from. Apparently no one's ready to risk their career yet by going on the record.

Anyway, is there a loop? I just read somewhere that the CIA unit tasked with tracking Al-Qaeda has been having their funding and personnel requests ignored for months.

Well, the subtitle to the story is:

"Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale"

While the story only quotes retired military and academics from military schools. You may be right that active military personnel would never express serious misgivings, even if they had them...but if that's the case, then surely it's irresponsible to refer to "most senior US military officers" as viewing Iraq as a disaster, isn't it?

It’s only irresponsible if it isn’t true. Has someone else got a long set of interviews with serving officers who think the occupation is going swimmingly?

It’s only irresponsible if it isn’t true.

Really? The story shouldn't reflect the headline? The people quoted shouldn't be the people mentioned in the headline?

And how are we to establish that the assertion is true if the body of the article doesn't do anything to support the claim?

That's ridiculous.

Would you feel better if the subhead ended with . . . prominient strategists and retired officers say?

Because unless you think Gens. Odom and Hoare are lying about what their active-duty contacts are telling them, the article does support the claim. The most the Guardian is guilty of, on the face of it, is sloppy editing. And on that scale they’re hardly under par for a major newspaper.