If you haven't noticed, the discovery of over 500 chemical weapons shells was recently announced. That would qualify as WMD. Imagine America's word being tarnished if we cut and run now. Who would want to rely on the US as an ally? OBL specifically cited Clinton's running away after a few losses as part of why he thought Aq could strike against the US. That we were a paper tiger who would not stand up for ourselves. Why would abandoning Iraq before they are ready not tarnish our reputation?

I suspect your citing the 2500 dead is not to draw attention to the fact that the US has been incredibly successful in keeping casualties low. We have fought many battles (let alone multi-year campaigns) that have produced more casualties. But is the number some how of mystical significance? If we set a limit and say if you can kill this many US soldiers, you win, is that a good thing? If the 2500 service deaths is so bad, why is re-enlistment among those who have served in Iraq so high? Take a look at total US casualty rates from all causes. While the war in Iraq is certainly causing more casualties, we lost about as many people (2,392) in Carter's last year of his presidency. That is one year of peace vs 3 years in Iraq. So your point on the 2500 is what?

Did you notice the recent poll showing respect for OBL is down and that the thought that democracy could work in an Arab country is up. Is it just possible that the showing of liberty and democracy as an alternative to mid east tyranny is beginning to show fruit? While the total number of terrorist attacks are up, they are concentrated in Iraq. The trend line there is reduced numbers of attacks. The point of the post was that Sunni's may be moving away from continued violence and towards the political process. So how would cutting and running help to discourage terrorist attacks? Do you really think that terrorists would have no cause to hate us and try to hurt us if we left Iraq?

Piracy, like slavery, is in the dustbin of history. Not that it is totally gone, but that it has been reduced enough not to impact the vast majority of this planet. In fighting piracy, this fledgling country had a national cry of "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute". Our current defense spending is less than 5% of GDP (Iraq and non-Iraq defense spending). This compares to a peak of 35% during WWII, 15% for Korea, 10% for Vietnam and 6% for the Gulf war. So is your problem that the Republican majorities in congress and the republican president have been able to keep the expenditures for the global war on terror so low?

Arguing alternate history about what would have happened with Clinton might be fun, but I would prefer to do so with someone who has some historical context to make their argument from. You obviously do not.

Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs, other blogs, and the mainstream media. If you're a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link......

Everyone knows that is true.

"What will the left run on if the brave Iraqi minutemen give in."

Here's some things to run on:

America's word has been tarnished (no WMD)

2,500 are dead.

Terrorists are being created everywhere in the world because of our extremely prolonged presence. They have the cause they need to recruit.

There is an untold amount of money that has been squandered. Millions unaccounted for because of little or no oversight.

Did I mention 2,500 dead?

Note: If it was Clinton that invaded and found nothing, the right would have removed him from office by now. Everyone knows that is true. It would be the right that would "cut and run."

These are the times that try men's souls. Certainly we are just one beheading away from victory for the Iraqi minutemen.