According to Jeremy Scahill, correspondent for Democracy Now! and therefore hopefully someone of sufficiently high-status for doubters to pause for a moment and listen to:

Now, I’ve looked very carefully at both of their Iraq plans, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lifted much of their Iraq plans from two sources. One is the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, and then the other is the 2007 Iraq supplemental, which was portrayed as the Democrats’ withdrawal plan. And both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a three-pronged approach to what they see as a longer-term presence in Iraq. They say that US personnel are going to remain in the country to protect diplomats and other US officials in the country. And we’ve already talked a bit about that with Obama. Hillary Clinton appears to be taking the same approach on that. Number two is that they want to keep trainers in place that will train the Iraqi military. At present, there’s 10,000 to 20,000 US trainers, all of whom will require security, so that’s a substantial force. And then the third is that they’re saying that they want to keep a force in place to, quote, “strike at al-Qaeda,” in the words of Barack Obama’s Iraq plan.
When the Institute for Policy Studies did an analysis of what this would mean, they said it’s 20,000 to 60,000 troops, not including contractors. And right now we have a one-to-one ratio with contractors and troops in the country. 20,000 to 60,000 troops indefinitely in Iraq, this is something that over the course of ten years the Congressional Budget Office says could cost half-a-trillion dollars. This doesn’t include the fact that you have to have troops bringing supplies in and out of Iraq. It doesn’t include the troops that Obama and Clinton are going to keep in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and elsewhere. I mean, this is actually a pretty sustained indefinite occupation that’s going to be on the table if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are in office and take power.

so that is about half of the current troop levels that have been generating all these tragic suicides.

Maybe the rate of US casualties will drop by half, as well – to a mere 50,000 per year if the numbers from a recent RAND survey are to be beleived:

On April 17 the RAND Corporation released a study of service members and veterans back home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The 500-page study was titled Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery.

Here’s how the figures add up, just for Americans. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have thus far produced 300,000 psychological casualties, 320,000 brain injury casualties, plus 35,000 (probably understated) officially reported “normal” casualties. This adds up to 655,000 US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, an average of just under 101,000 Americans killed or wounded every year since the wars began.

So how about that – indefinite continuation of the US occupation of Iraq under the administration of President Obama will only result in (50,000 x 8) 400,000 more American casualties during an 8 year term of office.

A real antiwar candidate could simply say, after 12 months of my first term of office, there will be zero American casualties, because I will end the occupation. And the American people would support that, at this point.

But we don’t have the chance to support that, because right now no candidate is saying that.

So for those who despise war and its despoilation more than they are infatuated by the electoral triumphs of some political faction, the choice is easy – don’t vote for or support a candidate who promises 400,000 more pointless maimings of American soldiers.

Timmeh, your shallowness and incompetence are showing. Jus’ saying.

We want to hear all about the convention!

I think Grit doesn’t produce on Fridays [weekends = ?]

Thanks Laura for this report.

Sorry, I’m not caught up here. We’re putting on the Alaska Democratic Party Convention beginning tomorrow, and putting in hours and hours and….it will be worth it.