The change in tactics mentioned at the end of this article is not encouraging:

The top commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, said last Thursday that U.S. troops would start to change their ground tactics in order to avoid alienating the local population. The new strategy would rely mainly on better intelligence and the theory of "cordon and knock" -- when troops seal off a building, knock on a door and ask permission to be let in, rather than just charging in. Sanchez and his senior officers have cautioned the "cordon and knock" technique would be used only when appropriate, stressing the rules of engagement for opening fire have not changed.

The U.S. military "received a stern warning" from Iraq's new Governing Council about recent raids and civilian casualties. The council's first president, Ibrahim Jafari, a member of the Shiite Muslim fundamentalist Dawa party, said, "The blood of our compatriots has huge value in our eyes, especially when soldiers kill innocent people." This article mentions the change in tactics in the context of a "culture clash".

To quell the insurgency, American troops raid homes in broad sweeps, arresting anyone caught in their net. The detained Iraqis -- mostly bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time -- complain U.S. troops are heavy-handed, apparently unaware they are sowing deep seeds of resentment by humiliating proud tribesmen. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez [...] said last week he ordered a change of tactics, directing commanders to go after specific targets rather than staging wide sweeps.  But Iraqis say what is most distressing is their physical treatment during and after arrest. U.S. troops put their boots on the back of men's heads as they lay face down, forcing their foreheads to the ground. There is no greater humiliation, they say, because Islam forbids putting the forehead on the ground except in prayer.

Notice the absurd double standard. The soldiers are expected to be sensitive to Islamic religious concerns, but Muslims are not expected to be sensitive to soldiers' concerns about being killed. While there's no indication we've changed our arrest procedure, it does appear that we are willing to increase the risk to our troops to avoid offending Iraqis. But if "wide sweeps" and "charging in" tactics are safer for our troops and more effective at finding insurgents, then that is what should be done. Hopefully the first priority is to protect Americans. Meanwhile, FoxNews reports on how some Muslims are treating Americans in Iraq:

Members of three Islamic groups stepped forward on Saturday to claim responsibility for a number of recent guerrilla attacks that have left several U.S. soldiers dead and scores of others injured in Baghdad.

FoxNews reports: Shiites Give GIs 24 Hours to Leave Baghdad Neighborhood.

A Shiite Muslim group demanded [August 14] that U.S. troops withdraw from a Baghdad neighborhood within 24 hours, a day after American forces fired on thousands of protesters in the Shiite enclave and killed at least one person. A statement distributed in Sadr City said American forces "deeply regret" what happened and described it as a mistake. Later, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, said troops try to keep Iraqi culture in mind but must remain aggressive.

Apparently an Islamic banner was blown down from a communications tower by an American helicopter, triggering the Muslim protests.

Sanchez [...] insisted the rotor wash blew down the banner, and said coalition troops try to keep Iraqis' "culture and sensitivities" in mind. "Our intent is not to alienate the Shiite people," he told reporters.

Think the Shiites are worried about alienating American GIs?

If Democrats were really concerned about America's security, they would be criticizing Bush not for attacking Iraq, but for not also attacking Saudi Arabia and Iran. Not for failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but for failing to identify militant Islam as our ideological enemy. Not for increasing law enforcement's focus on Arabs and Muslims coming into America, but for shying away from really doing it. Not for failing to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks, but for failing to act forcefully enough to prevent the next ones.

But if Democrats changed their rhetoric and criticized Bush for all the above they would have to embrace self-interest as the basis for American foreign policy. But then they wouldn't be Democrats, would they?

In "Confession of an Anti-Sanctions Activist," Charles M. Brown exposes one leftist, anti-American "peace" group for what it really was: a tool for Iraqi Baathist propaganda.

"Our uncritical treatment of the Iraqi regime was not a case of ignorance. It was the result of a deliberate choice we made among our priorities. We had to decide which moral challenge we wanted to make. We chose to limit that moral challenge to the U.S. policy of maintaining sanctions against Iraq. We were never particularly interested in or suited to challenging Saddam and his regime over their invasion of two neighboring states, the systematic genocide against the Kurds, or Saddam's consolidation of one of the most violent internal security systems in the world."

This article is a good study in the massive evasion necessary to support leftist causes. The author even traces the roots of the group (Voices in the Wilderness) back a Catholic radical group from the '70s. Ultimately, however, the author fails to see the altruist/socialist connections between the group and Saddam's regime:

"It was tragically ironic: Voices and the regime did not share a single value. Voices [in the Wilderness] was an attempt by Catholic radicals and their disciples to promote their vision of world peace; Saddam Hussein's only apparent desire was to maintain his iron grip over Iraq. Voices and the regime agreed only that the sanctions crisis was rooted in U.S. policy. Yet that single point of agreement became the fulcrum of Voices' venture in Iraq. This was yet another case of politics making for the strangest possible bedfellows."

 Also of interest from the archives:

• "I Was Wrong." by Ken Joseph, Jr. (April 1, 2003)
  I had been demonstrating against the war thinking I had been doing it for the very people I was here with now and yet I had not ever bothered to ask them what they wanted...Over and over I questioned them 'Why could you want war? Why could any human being desire war?' They're answer was quiet and measured. 'Look at our lives! We are living like animals. No food, no car, no telephone, no job and most of all no hope.'
• Smashing Windows for Peace by Robert Garmong (March 28, 2003)
• Peaceniks: Warmongers for America's Enemies by Alex Epstein (December 10, 2002)
• Debunking the Clichés of Pacifism by Kevin Delaney (October 13, 2001)

An AP article titled "China Planning Constitutional Changes" reports that the communist nation is considering a formal acceptance of capitalistic ideas.

"The news reports gave no details of the possible changes. But foreign analysts say they include the communist era's first guarantee of property rights for entrepreneurs who have driven China's two- decade-old economic boom. [...] "It wasn't until 1999 that the constitution was amended to declare private business an 'important component' of the economy, not just a 'complement' to state industry."