Rick, what about John Kline?

It's almost like having roaches. You have to use the biologicals to get rid of them.

The entire responsibility for the debacle in Iraq can be laid at the little turned-in feet of Mark Coffey, who knew what needed to be done, how long it would take, how to do it, and what victory would look like, and did nothing.

Thanks for nothing Mark. You betrayed your country, your God, and your best girl. And as far as what your Mom must think, well better the curtain of discretion should be drawn over that grand lady's suffering. I can hear her now "and I brought my boy up to be a soldier"

She'll die of shame Mark. How can you stand it?

Nevermind that Murtha is looking out for the troops. Leave that out of everything you post here or anywhere. From the beginning, Murtha has said that these troops shouldn't be put in a situation where something like Haditha or other atrocitites would happen. Murtha was TAKING UP FOR THEM. He is still holding to the military in what he is proposing. If anything, the so called lefty traitor blogosphere should denounce Murtha. But wait! We're not. And never have. Brit Hume can't get it. Rick, you and Mark can wrap your brains around it.

Why am I not surprised.

A gracious comment, and it would be less than gracious of me not to acknowledge it. We do indeed disagree -- vehemently -- and that disagreement extends far beyond either the tactics or strategy of our involvement in the Middle East; it's a matter of what we believe America to be, both as a political culture and as a civilization. It goes without saying that this is not something we can debate in the comment section of someone else's blog, even one belonging to someone as tolerant as Glenn is.

We can take some consolation, though, in the fact that this debate is now general in the country, and each of us has his or her own part in it. There are thousands of garden plots now, each assiduously tilled, if you don't mind a pacific metaphor. What comes of it all, we'll see.

Rest assured, though, that eliminationist rhetoric won't be the easy tool that it once was for bullies who haven't the patience or the wherewithal to persuade honestly. The Dick Cheneys will find shooting quail far easier than bitch-slapping liberals, and the salad days of the Limbaughs and Gaffneys, the O'Reillys and Santorums are at an end -- that much I can guarantee you.

It's odd that the withdrawl of so few troops would be significant, just as the surge of so few troops seems. Neither makes a significant change in Iraq. Neither could.

Well, there are a couple of ways in which it's significant:

1. While the Shia south isn't a model of sweetness, the British have generally managed to hand over some power to locals in recent months. That's in contrast to Baghdad: admittedly, things are much tougher there, but the visuals are everything.

2. Unfortunately, if Operation Bomb Iran happens, or even if the Great Patriotic Surge starts targetting Shia leaders, then the south becomes a much more dangerous place. Blair doesn't want a British presence around if that happens; the political mood in Britain is already somewhat suspicious of the idea of squaddies taking bullets on account of American messups. (See also: fire, friendly.)

In short, the top brass have made it pretty clear that there's diminishing returns for the military presence, and Blair's quite happy to run with that as he bows out, especially with Iran on the horizon. Again, there's an obvious contrast with Bush, who considers it somehow outrageous to suggest he might clean up his mess before leaving office.

The Prince Harry thing makes for a fun connection, but I think it's misleading here. He'll go where he's posted, and has been pretty insistent that his army career is the real deal, so he's going to be deployed somewhere that might be considered dangerous, even if that's not Iraq. Not the brightest button in the royal box, he wants to fire guns while surrounded by tough working-class kids. Fair play to him.

The Brits announced in the Fall they would probably remove troops from Iraq during 2007, conditions permitting. When the surge plan was announced in January, Blair publicly announced (around the 10th I believe) that it would not affect British plans to withdraw troops one way or another. Why weren't those Blair quotes referenced instead of unsupported speculation. Blair has consistently held to a policy of avoiding strict deadlines for the same reasons the American military holds them in disfavor. The story today and the LA Times are no change in policy for Blair. Glenn's reaction in the comments defending his position is laughable in its naivete:

"The withdrawal of 1,500 troops is definite and unconditional and set to a fixed timetable. The remainder appears conditioned on certain goals, but we'll see once he makes the formal announcement."

I guess any time conditions become right for the withdrawal of some troops and it can be scheduled firmly enough to be put on a calender a few weeks in advance this becomes a violation of Blair's no fixed deadline doctrine. If he schedules the departure of two troops the day after tomorrow and announces it, is that a violation as well? The position is ludicrous on Glenn's part.

I also enjoyed Glenn putting on a military hat:

"Moreover, given that British troops are deployed primarily in Southern Iraq, their withdrawal will either require a deployment of replacement American forces (thereby diluting the "surge"), or create a vacuum where Iran can exert still greater influence and/or provide a safe haven for Shiite militias to wait out the "surge" in safety (while American forces do their dirty work in battling the Sunnis)."

He offers no support for his speculation, something for which he would lambaste conservative pundits. Given that the British are only withdrawing troops "as conditions" permit, it would seem they have a favorable impression of conditions around Basra at the current time. A review of British casualty figures would also suggest perhaps that a immediate substitution by American forces is not required. The other doomsday aspects of his speculation don't need to be addressed, nor the ravings about Prince Harry or the pending war with Iran raised by the other commenters.