Lets  figure out 100 years now

thats 80000 dead in a century, 1.5 times vietnam

1.2 million wounded in 100 years.

But the american people wont put up with a 100 year war.
Even my republican friends blanch at the thought

rest in peace
may their families and loved ones one day have peace
and may those who crafted and supported this invasion and occupation feel the weight of those lost souls every day of their lives.
And where is the end??

On the Washington Post tracker it has approximately 30,000 injured - 15 to 1 would mean about 60,000.

I did some quick calculations to compare the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts.  If we applied the Vietnam killed to injured ratio to Iraq, the numbers today would be roughly 9,300 killed and 24,600 injured.  Instead of the 4,000 mark, we'd be closing in on the 10,000 mark.  Thanfully, due to armor, medical, and technical advances the number of killed is less than half of what it could've been 40 years ago.  But this perspective makes the casualties in Iraq even more sobering - that had it not been for these advances Bush's war would have cost many more American lives.  And I seriously doubt these advances were part of the equation to go to war.

Iraq Casualty Coalition Count, the number of wounded is 29,314.  That would be a 7:1 ration.  MSNBC reported 15:1, maybe they were counting non-hostile-related wounded or something, I don't know.

According to McCain at the end of this video he's even talked about 1,000 or 10,000 years, truly NUTS!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I trust this video is accurate.

of the AEI and the Brookings scholars discussing Iraq anyone who thinks we will not have a military contingent moving forward regardless of the new President needs to seek therapy. Its simply not politically feasible. As much as many folks think the US needs to restore Amercia's standing in the world this will be prevented by a withdrawal predicated on anything other than political developments on the ground in Iraq. France and Germany and other European countries can ill afford for what stability that has developed in Iraq to be lost in what surely would be complete disaster if the US withdrawals expeditiously.
People who think that brigades in country can simply be removed have no sense of military logistics at all. These people forget that logistics involved with the deployment. Recall how long it took in 1990/91 to get troops in theater and how long Tommy Franks planned strategically in this war with much less a force than this Surge build-up.
There are reasons why we are in the DMZ in Korea and most of these are politically and stability rooted in our foriegn policy.
No one wants to focus on what will occur in the Middle East should someone pledging complete withdrawal be elected President.Obama and Clinton for example have no plan for post-war Iraq and want to leave it in the hands of a government who will not have its real true election until late 2009 ("the second government"). I am certainly not in agreement with McCain neccessarily on some of his characterizations but zero people in DOD or DOS appear to be working on withdrawal plans, in fact they most likely are working on ways in which to capitalize on the successes the Surge has brought from a localized political process and yet a new President will walk in on January 20 and on the 21st begin withdrawing troops. I just do not see that happening.
As Fred Kagan pointed out when people begin to complain more about the central government and the politicians inability to address the needs of the locals and not address "security" or religious affiliation of leadership as the first point of arguement you know that progress is being made if but gradual and it is unfortunate that at a time where it may appear that a transitional phase may be taking place it could be destroyed by the very nation that allowed for its existance in the first place, the United States.
While I have lately tended to focus on the domestic agendas of the Presidential hopefuls, the issue of Iraq certainly lends credence to some of the lapses of judgements and experience that many of these hopefuls really have if you simply go by what the scholars are stating about Iraq these days. It begs the question who are the people directing or disimilating information to the Presidential hopefuls about Iraq. Maybe one should address those agendas as part of the overall scope of these campaigns however misguided if you take the AES and Brookings on balance regarding the research by these scholars. Or maybe Obama former advisor got it right with the BBC in the first place?