The question is will the violence be abated more effectively by our staying in Iraq or leaving it?

There are other questions too, like what it will cost us to try and stay, the effect on neighboring regions, and so forth.

500 deaths per month would be about what Brazil is currently experiencing

in a population 8 times that of Iraq. The example is wholly specious.

We shouldn't sugarcoat the situation. No matter how you cut it 500 per month is a lot of violent death.

That's not the question. The question is will the violence be abated more effectively by our staying in Iraq or leaving it? I believe that reasonable people can differ in their answers to that question. It's a matter of judgment, conjecture, and opinion.

That said Bush would be wise to direct that US pause at 14 and not 15 Brigades. It signals the Iraqis that the commitment by US will go down. Staying at 15 Brigades allows Iraqis to continue belief we'll just remain there as is.

I suppose that's true, but merely bringing levels of violence back down to 2005 levels still isn't really THAT much of an improvement.

Thank you! That's what I've been saying for a while now. 500 civilians killed per month is better than 1500, but it's still 500 a month.

Most observers seem to agree that the Surge has been a primary factor in improving the security situation in Iraq. Still, the theory behind adding more troops was that it would give Iraq’s civilian leaders some “breathing room” to resolve political differences. There’s not much progress on that front.

That's the conundrum that the leaders of our two political parties find themselves in. It's very obvious that we can have a positive influence on security in Iraq as long as we stay there. In that Republicans are right. The American people don't want to stay there. In that Democrats are right.

Using our departure as leverage to impel the Iraqi factions to arrive at some political solution to their problems is something like the threat made by Cleavon Little (Bart) in Blazing Saddles—the Iraqis would have to be really, really stupid to take it seriously.

Most observers seem to agree that the Surge has been a primary factor in improving the security situation in Iraq.

I suppose that's true, but merely bringing levels of violence back down to 2005 levels still isn't really THAT much of an improvement.