Both said things were not going well - ie. we were not losing but we were not winning either. A serious concern was that only 2 of the 90 trained Iraqis battalions could actually fight on behalf of the Iraqis and another issue seemed to be the lack of service personnel seemed to be another issue. Widespread infrastructure problems also were serious. Both believed we needed to stay firm and win but both believed this was going to be a long term issue - 7 years out.
Its too bad there is a lower support for this action right now. A lot of people don't see the long term gain that can come out of this.
Though what these people say may be correct...many of the so called "military experts" are Monday morning quarterbacks that were COMPLETELY wrong in the expectations for Afghanistan and the initial action in Iraq. In fact, NONE of them thought that elections could have been held as soon as they were.
My only point is that 14 of the 17 (I think it is) provinces are in pretty good shape while the terrorists and insurgents continue to cause problems and fight hard in the area where they were the strongest before the war. While the news media covers (rightfully so) that part of the war effort, they do not cover those parts of the country that are getting their local governement up and running, etc. By not showing both successes and setbacks, we get a skewed picture ...and the enemy is heartened.