Got an e-mail from one of my reliable winger correspondents about today’s Baghdad bombing, the second attack in two days, and “part of a spike of violence that comes as the U.S. military begins drawing down its forces.”

My question to him - and everyone on the right - is this:

If the “peace” achieved over the past year or so can only be kept by the perpetual presence of 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq - does that mean the U.S. should keep that many troops there indefinitely?

Why does anyone believe that if we kept that many troops there another 10 years - at the cost of trillions of dollars - then pulling out then wouldn’t also trigger a spike in violence?

Right-wingers seem to think that if only we kept firm in our commitment for another - 2 years, 12 years, 20 years - the Iraqi mind would suddenly, miraculously be changed. The insurgents would smack themselves in the forehead and say - The Americans are right! I’m going to put down my weapon and live peacefully!

No. Militarily outgunned, the insurgents have lain low, realizing that at some point, the Americans would have to pull back. This was always the danger of Iraq - that the only way to truly change the state was to provide an open-ended commitment, whatever it cost. But the United States does not and never did have the wherewithal to turn Iraq into the 51st state.

Right-wingers want this to be about victory and glory. Basically, they want reality to conform to their ideological script - as they always do.

But if there is to be “victory” in Iraq, Iraqis are going to have to gain it. If there’s going to be a wonderful shiny democracy in Iraq, it must be their wonderful shiny democracy.

I don’t know why people who want to complain about volcano monitoring believe we have the fiscal capability to give Iraq an open-ended commitment. Money spent here at home on Americans bad - imperial overstretch necessary.