In the shadow of North Korea, a horrific week in Iraq

(Note from John: AJ is a former US Defense Intelligence officer who covered Iraq for two years.)

North Korea dominated most of the international news this week, and probably rightfully so, but it's worth noting that the torrent of bad news coming out of Iraq continues unabated.

In the past week alone, a study was released indicating about 655,000 Iraqis (about 2.5% of the entire population) have been killed as a result of the war, the head of the UK army called for British troops to draw down from Iraq "sometime soon," and the Iraqi parliament passed a hugely divisive law by the barest of margins -- after barely attaining a quorum -- that sets the stage for a divided Iraq, a result that will ultimately cause more strife and bloodshed than keeping the country together. Senator Warner (R-VA) and former Secretary of State James Baker both indicated that the current course and strategy is not effective, and to top it all off, the U.S. military announced budget plans to account for current troop levels in Iraq, currently about 140,000, to remain there until 2010.

Violence is up, attacks are up, and deaths are up, and even the most ardent war supporters can't seem to bring themselves to claim that things are improving.

So here's some logic: We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, and that number is not able to quell the violence. There is no indication that a moderate increase in troops would engender drastic improvements, and although some people speculate that a drastic increase in troops (say, doubling the force) would improve the security situation, any legitimate expert on our armed forces will tell you our military isn't in shape to do that, regardless of any political considerations.

So. The status quo is failing -- Iraq is getting worse, not better. The U.S. military simply isn't able to significantly increase the troop level, and we've seen in the past few months that moderate increases in forces doesn't appear to effect long-term improvement. Many experts believe that our very presence in Iraq exacerbates the situation, so it stands to reason that if current troops (or slightly increased numbers) can't bring improvement, and you can't drastically augment the forces, and there's a possibility that drawing down troops may actually help the situation, that's your next logical step, yes? No? Yes?

Of course, that's just an intellectual and strategic argument. There are plenty of moral and legal arguments to be made as well, but it's all irrelevant anyway. No alternative plan is going to be adopted, and it's fairly useless to argue for troop withdrawal when President Bush has made it abundantly clear that he believes our presence is a benefit, and no matter what happens, that belief will continue. Any argument otherwise -- whether it's made by me, Sensible Liberal and Intellectual Midget Tom Friedman, clear-thinking Republicans, or anyone else -- is seen by the Bush administration as a failure of will as opposed to reality-based critical thinking.

Meanwhile, more heroic, dedicated, patriotic Americans die every day for a bad war waged by bad men.