One thing that is missing from all the discussions of numbers of troops in Iraq, whether to stay, is the opportuity cost ... the discussion becomes much more clear cut when you point out the debt burden of the war for future generations of Americans and what could be done with the money right now, such as health care for all Americans, with money left over.

Put in those terms, I think all but the most militant warriors (most of whom of course are not in Iraq themselves) would pull the plug on the disaster Bush has made on behalf of all of us.

opportunity cost is a business term, which usually refers to the alternative uses of capital, equipment, or real estate.

for example, i can do an opportunity cost evaluation on whether to build a parking garage, or a casino on the scenic riverfront property i own downtown. which one do you think would provide a better return.

similarly, with the US troops in iraq, the "opportunity cost" question isn't as simplistic as "bring them home", although that would absolutely reduce US casualities, but at the expense of iraqi casualties, US foreign policy influence/credibility, deterrance of future acts of terrorism, etc.

rather, the alternative opportunities would include things like:

• redeploy to afghanistan (obamas's solution)
• invade iran
• standby to defend israel from palestinian attacks or iranian nukes
• deter the next terrorist/hezbollah uprising in lebanon
• send to the philippines to crush radical islamists there
• bring home immediately and do not use at all
• redeploy to iraqi borders, ports, and airfields to deter the infiltration of men/materials from iran, syria, etc.

personally, i favor the last bullet point, as it aligns better with the skills and technology we've sent to iraq, rather than trying to prevent terrorist bombings of public spaces like mosques, markets, and street corners.

but others may feel differently.

we have proved once again that american troops can win a conventional war, but cannot occupy a foreign country.

will we also prove that our committments to the oppressed of the world can be deterred by acts of barbarism and atrocities?

people in the white house and congress who've never looked down a gunsight will decide that answer, i suppose.

or whatever it was that coalesced into your thoughts on the matter, is wrong. "opportunity" isn't a synonym for "option". "cost" doesn't have to be monetary. opportunity cost is a reasonably argued best opportunity foregone as a result of an action taken, i.e. the cost incurred or the gain foregone.

so on the war, you've basically got money spent and utilization of resources (say management, and operational). re the former (money spent), the health point is, in theory*, valid. re the guys (operational), the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the unavailability of army/marine support for Katrina and related such would all count. re the big guys, you've got stuff like zero progress on the MidEast Peace Roadmap, NK and Iran going nuke crazy, etc.

* in practice, how you get money out of the defense budget into a health budget is another story