Neocons keep squealing to us to 'listen to the boots on the ground'.
It seems to me that that is the least objective source, since the troops are, for all practical purposes, required to believe that victory can be acheived. They also are subject to swift retribution for failing to "toe the line".
That's why we've seen mostly retired officers criticise the Iraq war up until now.
Here is the view of an officer who served two tours in Iraq:

US officer condemns Iraq strategy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6600893.stm

You see, this is what happens when you manage a war politically. Neocons describe the recent appropriations bill as "micromanaging" the war. Well, this is exactly what Bush did. He chose generals who mouthed the words they were told to, and these generals knew that they could not conduct any policy of their own that was contrary to the "Bush Lie". For instance, that the Iraqi people would welcome us and we would not need to plan for an occupation, or only 3/5 of the troops the military required would be sent. Or that the cost would not exceed $100 billion. And so forth and so on. Now we have Petraeus, who remains in his position because he knows he has to say things that the White House wants to hear. Petraeus is, to my knowledge, a fine officer, but if he fails to "toe the line" he knows he will be replaced by another toady who will serve as merely a yes-man rather than the effective leader that his troops need.
If Bush had let the military handle the Iraq war the way the military saw fit, rather than as the White House's ridiculously optimistic agenda called for, then the troops would be home by now and Bush would probably be looking like a hero. But instead he had to micro-manage. That's how we got such a feeble Iraqi government, such a horribly slow 'reconstruction', and such a staggering bill for the whole mess.

And this is how we got into the war in the first place. Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, went to the Pentagon and intelligence services and told them what evidence they wanted. Any evidence that contradicted their agenda was to be ignored or discarded. Iraqi exiles, many of whom hadn't been in Iraq for over a decade, were tapped as "expert sources". They were told what crazy allegation needed "confidential source testimony", and then given time to concoct "evidence" from 'experts' which was then presented as proof that what the White House claimed was, in fact, true. Intelligence reports which had been completely discredited were resurrected as authoritative, and when analysts questioned if the Administration's allegations were based on these discredited reports, the answer was always that this was NEW information.
And then they presented this "evidence" to Congress and the American people. When it turned out to be false, Congress and the American people were then, in effect, blamed for "falling for it". Notice how it's always someone else's fault? Notice how Bush takes "responsibility" for disasters, but never takes the blame?