<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body><BR>De Long wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> It seems to me that the more troops we have, the less of our troops<BR>> will die because there will be more people to catch IEDs, find<BR>> insurgents, save injured troops etc.<BR>> <BR>> Totally contrary to what my liberal self was saying a few months back.<BR>> <BR>> Am I crazy?<BR>
<BR>
No, you're perfectly sane. Escalating a war against a determined <BR>
indigenous resistance always leads to fewer deaths. This has been<BR>
the case in all occupations, from the Philippines to Nicaragua to Vietnam.<BR>
It's certainly working in Haiti. This time next year, the sweatshops will<BR>
be booming again.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, if your only concern is <EM>American</EM> deaths (which is implicit<BR>
in what you wrote), then the answer is to withdraw from troops<BR>
from the ground entirely and resort to a massive escalation of the <BR>
secret air war that has been occurring since late 2005. This will<BR>
almost certainly escalate the already genocidal death rates in Iraq,<BR>
however many many fewer American soldiers will die.<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, perhaps sufficiently few that you can launch future adventures<BR>
under a Democrat president with broad approval from the American<BR>
public. Although bombing from 20,000 feet will transfer the risk of <BR>
death to the civilian population, you can be sure that your confederates<BR>
will detect a humanitarian purpose in it.<BR>
<BR><BR><BR> <BR><br /><hr />Be one of the first to try <a href='http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d' target='_new'>Windows Live Mail.</a></body>
</html>