In the sense that casualties are back to 2004 levels:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Now that the surge has done what it's supposed to do, what next?

The promise of the escalation was not just to reduce violence, but to pave the way for political and diplomatic solutions in Iraq, which is not happening.

So what next is that, according to Republicans, we have to stay in Iraq forever.

We're in a multitude of nations forever, nothing wrong with that. Issue is, we can't stay there en mass forever, which Republican's are in no means suggesting. They may not have declared timetables such as Democrats, but that doesn't imply forever at the current levels, which are unsustainable.

Just make Irag the 51st state already. ugh.

Well not voting for McCain would be a start.

Um, what?



It doesn't matter if they're suggesting it, although some are. It is the reality of the situation that they have created.



Despite the Republicans' now laughable definition of "winning," there is no way their criteria for withdrawal, let alone their ultimate goals for the region, will be met any time in the foreseeable future. So while 50-100 years is not technically "forever," it's close enough for political purposes.

But they can't withdraw because that would mean the Democrats were right, and they can't escalate even more because there are no troops. That means a constant occupation at current troop levels for the next few years and permanent occupation.

"According the U.S. Department of State’s list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:"

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

So as I was saying, we're in a vast number of countries forever, and Iraq is just one more. It's very likely we will always be in Iraq, that's not the question, the question is in what capacity.



Who suggested that we stay in Iraq, at the current levels, forever? Names and quotes please!



We will be at current troop levels for the next few years, I agree, but I think that if a Republican wins the white house, that troop levels would begin to be reduced, although slowly, toward the end of his term.

Eagle is correct here. We have a propensity to station military forces in various countries beyond any immediate need for doing so. Look at Europe, for instance. There will be troops in Iraq for a very long time to come, like it or not.

Time will tell whether Iraq ends up being more like Korea or like Vietnam.

I know we have troops everywhere in the world. My issue was "there's nothing wrong with it." To put it another way, how would we feel if China or Russia just decided to build a military base and station troops in American forever. I think Republicans of all people would be the most outraged. But then, as Kidrock admits, they have a hypocritical double-standard about that sort of thing. We're allowed to invade, no one else is. We're allowed to torture, no one else is. We're allowed to have nuclear weapons, no one else is. And so on.

Statements like "there's nothing wrong with it" illustrate how so completely Republicans have obliterated any credibility they've had on virtually any issue you can think of prior to 2000-2006. No more sovereignty, non-interventionist, small government, fiscal responsibility, civil libertarianism. It's all out the window and all thanks to the worst president the US ever had. And all they want is more of the same.

I said in Iraq forever. They'd do current troop levels if they could but those levels are unsustainable because of the ways in which the Bush administration has decimated the military.



Yeah, because Republicans have been so solid on foreign policy up to this point.

Historically speaking, such double standards are not party-specific. What it takes is a generational change, when a new generation matures under a multipolar world.

That, would be Andrew Johnson. But I digress.

I understand the historical changes. A hundred years ago, Democrats were the party of the racist south. Today it's the opposite. That's not what I'm talking about here.

A total reversal of your entire party platform in just under two years (from Bush's election to the height of the Republican spending and invasions) is hardly a generational change. The same people who lambasted Dems for spending and foreign policy interference were exactly the ones who increased government more than any other in history and created and implemented the asinine Bush doctrine.

I agree. He was giving presidential pardons to former Confederates so they could have their confiscated land back. However, Beeble doesn't have the ability to step back and analyze the history of bad presidents.

I dunno, seems to me that Hillary and Bill are using a bit of the "Southern Strategy" to gain more white voters in the south.

Oh, KR. Could you ever be right about anything? Ever?

Of course I've looked at the history of bad presidents. So have many, many historians. And I understand how utterly up Bush's ass you are, and I guess if I'd voted for the worst president in history, I might not want to acknowledge how I've unflinchingly supported the guy who made torture a Republican value or who made pre-emptive invasion into a "doctrine" or who expanded the size and scope of government more than any other president, who signed away the entire Bill of Rights except for the 2nd one. I can see where your enabling of that president might warrant some hesitation on your part. But that's the reality.

Ok, but that statement is blatantly false. Bush obviously has expanded the size/scope of government, but what about FDR? The guy created the modern presidency. The New Deal was the greatest incursion into the economy that the country has ever saw. Furthermore, he actually revoked the rights of thousands of Japanese. Not to mention the "lend-lease" act which essentially declared a...."pre-emptive" war on Germany.

He also destroyed an unwritten rule in this country; he ran for President more then 2 times which to me seems like the type of action a dictator would attempt. Those extra years also enabled him to set up a Supreme Court which would stay in power until the early 70's when Justice Douglas (the worst Supreme Court justice ever) finally died.

I never have called Bush a great president. I think he is alright and maybe a bit above average, but he is certainly not the worst president ever. The fact that William Henry Harrison did nothing automatically makes him a better president then Bush?

More bloodshed was caused by Americans under Lyndon Johnson than under any other president. On the contrary, Nixon was quite a diplomatic virtuoso.

It's better to define oneself by beliefs than by party.

James Buchanan was a basketcase as well. People distressed about modern politics should take a good look at the 19th century.

Okay, let's say the largest expansion since Johnson. Do you really want to use that caveat as an excuse for your total lack of outrage at Bush's policies? As long as he expanded it less than FDR, then you're okay with it?

And Bush has ACTUALLY revoked the rights of Americans as well. The difference is that I don't justify what FDR did. It was unconscionable. Not that you care about that or what happened to the Japanese. That's kind of my point about your lack of credibility on both of these issues. You can't criticize what FDR did AND support/defend Bush and his economic and detention/torture policies. Conservatives in America who aren't outraged at Bush have no leg to stand on anymore.

I agree, but I'm not sure I see your point about the double-standards or how it's applicable to the extremely short time in which Republicans have sold all of their supposed values down the river.

I love how Beeble attacks you first, and then your stance.

And is wrong twice.

Every time.

Um, no. I was wrong that Bush expanded government more than anyone unless you're talking dollar amount. But that wouldn't be contextually accurate so I will concede that Johnson and FDR expanded government more.

The point is that supposed conservatives have been remarkably non-critical about how Republicans have expanded government and eroded civil liberties. But they're going to pull all that out again when they're running against Hillary or Obama, calling them socialists over their health care and tax policies.

Deaths:
Iraq War: 150,000
...
Vietnam War: 3,000,000

Prisoners
Guantanamo Bay: 750
...
Tule Lake: 19,000
Manzanar: 10,000
Poston: 18,000
Heart Mountain: 11,000
Jerome: 9,000
Minidoka: 10,000
Gila River: 14,000 etc.
Total J/A Interned: 110,000

Not to say that an entire ethnicity was categorically singled out and placed into concentration camps.

As an Asian-American, I find the need to make these comparisons insulting. Liberal leaders have done vast amounts of good for our nation, but they have made their share of mistakes as well. It is in our interests, presumably as enlightened citizens, to acknowledge that fact.

Again, I don't disagree. And I would never argue that Democrats haven't been responsible for some pretty bad policies. I think the Japanese-American internment camps were a blight on our history.

But I'm not talking about the generational changes. I don't think any modern Democrat would justify those internment camps with a Democratic president.

I'm talking about a party that went from "small government and anti-interventionist" to "big government and pre-emptive invasions" in the span of two years. And will go BACK to "small government and anti-interventionist" or remain "big government and pre-emptive invasion" depending on who wins the election in November. Does that sound like a party of principle to you? Can you really point to the same total abandonment of your party's identity among the Democrats?

That's just coincidence of zeitgeist. Every president and his party was modern during his time. Republicans happen to be at their nadir in this specific hour. Also do recall that Republicans were not particularly offensive prior to 9/11. The Bush Administration and their strategists were uncannily able to manipulate social psychology to their own advantage, in a disturbingly Orwellian manner.

Democrats were not the party of small government before FDR and did not suddenly criticize big government after him. if they did, then I'd agree it's a comparable situation. That's what the Republicans are doing now. Neither were Democrats the party of racial and civil rights before the FDR internment camps. Quite the opposite in fact. They evolved into that over a generation after FDR, becoming so only during the JFK and Johnson administrations.