Josh, you definitely can make the argument that attempting to withdraw from Iraq will increase American casualties -- at least temporarily. Withdrawing in hostile territory is nasty work, and it's terribly hard to guard your remaining units as they pull back in fragile convoys, especially as fewer and fewer troops remain in the region to get each others' backs. We're not operating in a vacuum over there, and as Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence shoots up violence directed towards Americans probably will, too. But more substantively, most people -- except Bill Richardson -- calling for withdrawal aren't calling for immediate, total withdrawal. Democrats on the Hill, for instance, have internalized the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, which was to indefinitely leave a "residual" force that could amount from 20,000 to even 70,000 troops. (Joe Biden's about the only one who's bothered to make this somewhat politically inconvenient element of his plan clear.) Stephen Biddle has written about the problem this withdrawal-with-residual-force creates: A much smaller force -- mandated to carry out missions that involve working closely with Iraqi security on the streets -- would be much more exposed, producing a higher casualty rate. That said, I agree with your broader point. Rauch's argument about casualties kind of reminds me of those old cartoons where some buffoon gets an arrow through his head, which gives him all sorts of troubles, but he knows if he pulls out the arrow it'll be even worse. But in this case we can't just leave the arrow there forever. --Eve Fairbanks