First off, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to write comments and questions. I thought the easiest way would be try to group some of them together. I'm going to try to answer another batch tomorrow, if at all possible.

    I took Ellen's advice and got some shuteye, and I pondered the words of Jerry who sees in me a physical resemblance to Thomas Friedman, so let's get started.

This question of civil war is really pressing, and I think it is actually important to say whether one is under way or not. I believe it is, but maybe not in the way we've fashioned it in the past: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. When I think of the civil war in Iraq, I'm struck by the fault lines that are getting less attention. There is the sometimes explosive rivalry between Hakim's Badr milita and the Sadr forces. We've seen time and again the flaring of differences in western Iraq between insurgent groups. (As far back as last year, I heard an Iraqi guerrilla from Fallujah, of the nationalist variety, vowing to shoot any Arab expat trying to give him orders.) We should be careful in not minimizing differences between the two Kurdish parties. Understandably our attention is focused on Zarqawi's threats to wage an unrelenting campaign against Shiites. But in the long run, it's the intra-communal battles that I think are more decisive and worrisome.

    I was struck by mimikatz's note. I think you're right, that is a sentiment we're going to hear more and more often. It sounds a little flaky, but I do believe that very rarely since the invasion have Iraqis and Americans spoken the same language. Obviously, there's the literal sense. But even in the vocabulary, ideas, perspectives, it was rare to see either side hear the other. I think back to Karima and her family, whom I wrote about in Night Draws Near. Talk about democracy and liberation seemed indulgent to them when they went three days without electricity and were still lugging water up two flights of stairs. In a way, those infrastructure issues may seem mundane, paling before the grander questions of political destiny. But at any moment, on any one day, they're simply overwhelming, even suffocating. Often, nothing else matters.

    It's great to hear from Swopa. I'm a reader. Really sharp stuff. A couple of quick thoughts on your note. I heard in Najaf last month that Sistani wasn't happy with how the coalition had turned out. And, in fact, I've always felt that the Supreme Council's success had much, much less to do with its own organizational capacity and more to do with its affiliation with Sistani. I'm not sure what Sistani's particular complaint is, if any. I was struck, too, by the frustration I heard about Sistani's own reticence. Several people asked why he hadn't spoken up recently on some pretty key issues - Sadr, the constitution, the government. On Sadr, here's the group's take, which makes some sense to me. In each fight, they've felt provoked, and the movement almost always reads politics as an existential game. In April, they were convinced the Americans were out to destroy them and, at the very least, arrest Sadr himself. Later that year, even some in the military in Najaf have acknowledged they may have picked the fight. I know we haven't heard the last from him. But I don't think he would unleash another uprising in a vacuum. My sense in reporting the past couple of months is that the Sadr movement sees the Mehdi Army as their last defense and, as important (perhaps even more), a way to ensure that their politics are taken seriously. More and more, Iraq is run by men with guns.

    Quixote's remarks are interesting, and thanks for sending them. I'd point back to what I said about Todd's questions. I feel strongly that our preconception of Iraq has become its reality. Some things were probably inevitable - an insurgency, the infusion of religion into politics, the collapse of infrastructure, the rise of Sadr in one fashion or another - but the state of affairs today is very much the consequence of concrete steps that organized politics almost exclusively along communal lines.

    On Liberal Voice's post, I hate to write about things I don't know about, and on a lot of those subjects, I'm a little bit uninformed. But you asked about officials who cared about Iraq. I just want to use this moment to remember Hume Horan, who has since passed away. He was a good man in Baghdad, and I was fond of him. There are a lot of sincere and committed people in the Green Zone, and Hume was one of them.

    I'm going to stop there. These comments, almost without exception, are really compelling. Again, thank you for taking the time to write them, and thanks for the kind words. I'll try to answer more tomorrow. I'm looking forward to it.