Two months after declaring the end to combat operations in Iraq, President George W. Bush issued a challenge to an Iraqi opposition he's never had to face: "Bring them on."

Three and a half years later, they're still coming. But according to the most celebrated study of the war, "Our government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias." Who is then opposing the U.S. occupation?

The Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, doesn't attempt to provide solutions to the war in terms of the simple rhetoric we've become accustomed to hearing. The group's admission that there aren't any guarantees to success is a sobering introduction that displaces politically crafted speech with some degree of honesty.

Yet why does the final assessment of not understanding the enemy in Iraq lay buried near the end of the text? How accurate is the portrayal of the sources of violence as the Sunni Arab insurgency, al-Qaida and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite militias, death squads and organized criminality? Is it true that most attacks against our troops come from the Sunni Arab insurgency?

History suggests that outside forces support such resistance movements. Not with uniformed fighters, but rather with funds, weapons and mercenaries. Iraq is no different.

The accusations that Iran and Syria are sending support across their borders aren't new. The Iraq Study Group recognizes that both nations are "content to see the United States tied down in Iraq." But they bring in a new player, the private citizens of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who the study group claims are providing funds to the Sunni resistance.

Are the governments of those citizens aware of this? Is there any connection to the group's claim and the recent resignation of the Saudi ambassador to the United States? Where might the energy agreement signed last January between Saudi Arabia and China fit in?

Some pretty murky political questions begin to appear once all the various international relationships are considered. Is it possible that the most obvious adversaries to our presence in the Middle East aren't the only antagonistic forces behind the resistance movements?

China is the second-largest lender the United States relies on while our national debt soars, in a large part because of the war in Iraq. A longtime opponent of U.S. ideologies, China is emerging as a serious economic competitor. The building boom has been steady there for several years. Their thirst for oil is no less than ours.

Today's superpowers don't engage in direct warfare. America's aid to the anti-Communist freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the 1980s is merely one example. The Nicaraguan Contras are another, and that chapter of our history includes covert arms deals with Iran. And of course, the North Vietnamese received massive support from the USSR and China that helped keep the U.S. military tied down in Southeast Asia for years.

What is obvious here is that political leaders of nations share a common philosophy that is grossly insensitive to the citizens of other countries. The support of proxy armies and freedom fighters of less developed nations isn't about freedom and eventual peace for the people. Instead they aid and arm the resistance movements to undermine the economic and military strength of their global competitor. They add flames to the war with little regard for the suffering of the innocent.

The United States doesn't own the copyright to covert actions such as the Iran Contra Affair or their legal counterparts. We don't have the patent rights to shipping arms into areas of conflict that we deem essential for our national interest.

The objective here is not to accuse China of aiding the so-called insurgency, but that to understand it, we may do well to look past the Middle East geographically and ask who else prefers to see the United States fail in the country with the second largest known oil reserves in the world.

Enemies aren't created by searching for peace, but rather by the competing interests of nations. Baker and Hamilton again tell us that our war hasn't made friends: "Sixty-one percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces." Might that not encourage ideological and economic competitors around the world to lend the resistance movements support to try to undermine U.S. goals in Iraq?

It's time to be honest about the Iraq war. It will last for years unless we choose to do what's right and end it.

You can read Rich Moniak's speech at the MFSO rally observing the 3rd anniversary of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq in Juneau (3/19/2006)

The only remaining aspect of interest for me will be the self-serving baloney from the little man Bush who'll pretend he single-handedly roped Hussein while sitting in the saddle of his presidential hobby horse."

This worst president's legacy to America will not be the trackdown and arrest of a second-rate dictator. No ... it will be this -

The White House can't really launch a swift-boat-liars campaign against these Military Times publications because of who the subscribers are, but they can fall back on their own historical cupidity and go to the dumb-them-down well one more time before the election.

Regardless of White House and Tony Snow protestations that  "the military papers, produced for military personnel by a subsidiary of Gannett, are biased,"  the dumber statement Snow and Bushco made was that the editorials are  "a caricature" and a "shabby piece of work" filled with inaccuracies.  

I find it ironically apropos that such a phrasing comes from Mr. Snow who himself in his short career as Scotty McLellan's replacement has been nothing but a caricature and given us nothing but shabby pieces of work filled with inaccuracies in his own role.

When asked at the press conference "Has the President seen or been told about the editorials?"

Snow replied,

"He's been told about the editorial.

... His reaction was just to sort of shrug it off. I mean, he understands what editorial writers sometimes do, and in this case, they're grandstanding.

The notion that somehow, as the editorial says, that this is not intended to influence the elections -- you've got to be kidding me. I mean, if they didn't want it to influence the elections, they could have published it Wednesday."

I suppose Snow is making a valid Republican talking point about the timing. But isn't timing part and parcel of when you write an editorial?

Not to mention the "timing" thing when Saddam is sentenced to hang three days before the mid-term election - as if when we vote we have been reminded that Republicans and the President who couldn't find WMD's under his own desk and gave up trying to find OBL deserves our vote now because we're finally getting around to executing the guy they said would attack America with WMD's.

The importance of these editorials is not the call to dismiss Mr. Rumsfeld who long ago proved totally incapable of running an invasion and occupation.

Rather, the importance is that the angry and disgusted breeze blowing every more fiercely against Republicans, neo-cons and the true betrayers of our military loved ones is reaching gale-force.

More American military families are speaking out, voicing opinions they used to suppress out of patriotic habit - and fear of insitutional military retribution - confirming what we've all known for more than three years.

Our military families are losing their most precious blood;  

the vigorous and disciplined young men and women of our future.

The shabbiest work and caricature that was always the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq sits broadly in loud full view of the American conscience.

More and more Americans have awakend from a fixation on dummies who eat insects and swim with worms,

on who can dance and who can't,

on a shallow focus on the wrong American idols,

on whether or not gay neighbors are the greatest threat to America,

because Iraq dominates our fears and hopes. The military Times editorials are worth their weight in tons of the real gold of American values.