...sending 20,000 extra soldiers in to Iraq... will still be less than were in-country during the early months of the occupation, when everything began to fall apart. Anyone want to bet that it will work this time, under much, much worse circumstances?I was more or less relying on my memory, and little else. So it's positively glorious to see that someone actually did the math, and it confirms my suspicion: 20,000 troops in Iraq won't do squat, if history is any evidence.
People pushing the McCain/Bush plan need to explain why history doesn't matter. Or, they could just let the Shia run the place, which they could have done 3 years ago.
Tom Tomorrow once did a cartoon, after the Right started talking about Afghanistan as "the War to Liberate the Women of Afghanistan", about how cute it was that they were naming wars after the one and only positive outcome they could name. I wonder if we'll get around to calling Iraq "the War for Regional Iranian Hegemony". Or Something.