Here’s an old but relevant post from Glenn Greenwald – from a year ago – and here ’s the prescient nugget for today:

“Having been forced by undeniable reality to acknowledge the unparalleled dangers which their policies have created in Iraq, they cannot be permitted to use those dangers to justify remaining on the path which has proven so disastrous for every aspect of our national security.”

If there is any solution, I think it involves dramatically reducing our presence and certainly the extreme conspicuousness of it (though fat chance with our new embassy there). My thinnest of hopes is that there is some chance of us redeploying while broadly internationalizing some type of humanitarian or peacekeeping force, born of some truly deft diplomacy and a humble, hat-in-hand appeal to the world. But I’m probably just dreaming for the impossible.

Excellent quote from Glen – hard to imagine it said any better than that.

The problem with peacekeeping, is there has to be a peace to keep.

fern@106..good point..no we don’t know what the combat casualty figures are either. The KIA’s are leaked out day by day but we never hear the pvt. so and so died in hospital in Germany or in the US. My guess would be that with the severity of the wounds. there are a lot of late deaths not being reported.

As to my point in @53 (?) but is was generated by the talk of Vietnam. If most of the support positions are done by KBR etc. than our combat troop numbers may be much closer the to Vietnam numbers. (assuming a ratio 1/10 combat to support in Vietnam)

Steve, this is a good site:
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Oklahoma kiddo @ 65

…
The impression here is that staying will result in more American soldier deaths.

Yes, I assume that is true. The argument some are making is that American soldiers should pay that price in order to keep even more Iraqis from dying. So it’s important to know (or have credible arguments about) whether the American presence could, in fact, reduce the killing. If it’s not true, then staying is clearly wrong. I think we have track down all of these arguments and their branches.

I agree it is important to track down the logic (or lack thereof) of those arguments which would have us stay in Iraq to salvage what we can of the wreck we created, and also examine the different types of people making those arguments. It seems that it is more than just the usual suspects of the neo-con cadre (e.g. people like John McCain as the most visible cheerleaders for increasing troop levels).

Here’s an old but relevant post from Glenn Greenwald – from a year ago – and here ’s the prescient nugget for today:

“Having been forced by undeniable reality to acknowledge the unparalleled dangers which their policies have created in Iraq, they cannot be permitted to use those dangers to justify remaining on the path which has proven so disastrous for every aspect of our national security.”

But there still remains the question of whether there is any moral argument for U.S. troops staying – if only to reduce future Iraqi deaths and carnage. That argument would rest on a supposition of good will on our part, which is itself suspect, of course. And given the track record thus far – and the parallel of rising violence with our continued presence, and the Iraqis desire for us to get the hell out – I’d say that moral argument is waning towards moot.

If there is any solution, I think it involves dramatically reducing our presence and certainly the extreme conspicuousness of it (though fat chance with our new embassy there). My thinnest of hopes is that there is some chance of us redeploying while broadly internationalizing some type of humanitarian or peacekeeping force, born of some truly deft diplomacy and a humble, hat-in-hand appeal to the world. But I’m probably just dreaming for the impossible.

OT: Mitch McConnell (R-Blowhard) thinks Senate Minority Leader is a position with sufficient clout to intimidate the Democrats into rubber-stamping judicial nominations.

Democrats warned not to block judges

Excerpt: Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become minority leader Jan. 4, told the conservative Federalist Society Friday not to feel bad about the Senate election results because Republicans will hold 49 seats in a body that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and bring legislation or presidential nominees to a final vote.

If the “Democrats want our cooperation, they’ll give the president’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote,” McConnell said.

Hey, Mitch? Bite me.

Lessee… takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. The `pugs can get 49 of their own and one Lieberman. That makes 50.

Mitch can breathe his own farts from now on….

Siun @ 132

Kirk … Dewars, eh?

I’ve broken out my cold weather Jamesons here.

Just put in my winter stock of single malt – Lagavulin this year. Yum

Oh dear – that’s what I get for allusions to UK ads (Dewar’s Scotch Whisky: It Never Varies)

myself, I’m partial to Laphroaig.

smells like a calm, foggy morning on the Isla Vista bluffs, with the sea and kelp and the sky….