No matter what one thinks about how that should be achieved precisely, our mission in Iraq right now should be to "get out." This was, in theory, the goal which was in place on "Mission Accomplished" day, around which time the administration was talking about reducing troop levels to 30,000 by the end of that summer.
The problem is that the jingosphere who are well represented in the administration believes that as long as the insurgents want us to "get out" then we can't get out because that would be doing what they want. Of course, the idea that getting out might be what's best for the Iraqi people is of little concern. Proving we've got the biggest balls is what matters, and by "we" I of course sad little men with their little empty bags of cheetoes who believe this grand adventure gives them Testicles Maximus By Proxy.
The other problem is the little fact WHICH THE MEDIA WON'T TALK ABOUT that we can't leave because we don't have any intention of leaving. If we do indeed plan to have a permanent military presence of 30,000, and we face a tough security situtation, then those 30,000 require another 100,000 to protect them. Drawing our troops down to zero may actually be a realistic proposition, while drawing them down to a permanent presence of 30,000 probably isn't. So, it'll be groundhog day in Iraq as soldiers continue to die to maintain the "honor" of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and the imperial dreams of the neocons.
And, hey, as I've written before, maybe having a permanent military base in Iraq is a good idea. We have lots of permanent military bases all over the world and there's certainly no a priori reason while having troops permanently in Iraq is such a bad idea. But, to make that determination we have to have a realistic understanding of what we hope to accomplish and what the cost, in Iraqi and American lives and treasure. Obviously the architects believed they could flick the Saddam regime out of power with their fingers and then build the bases on top of the resulting rose petals. Like so many other things they were wrong about this. Are the military bases still a good idea? Now that we have new data which tells us it's going to cost us 2+ soldiers per day indefinitely, and who knows how much money, should we still stick with this plan?
