A few years ago, some of us here suggested we would eventually be able to draw down troop levels in Iraq, since with enough ethnic cleansing there would be little sectarian strife left to fuel violent attacks. A study by UCLA has evidence for this in the amount of light observed in areas of Baghdad, before and after the troop increase:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14768-satellite-images-cast-doubt-on-success-of-iraq-surge-.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn14768

They say that images from the Defense Meteorological Satellite, which have been used before for large-scale light-mapping, show that Sunni neighborhoods are now darker, and were that way before the surge, as compared to before the main invasion.

In contrast, lights in other Iraqi cities remained at pre-surge levels or increased.

I was right to feel the invasion would be a bad move, but wrong to think Baghdad might be like Berlin, 1945. Turns out to have been Yugoslavia.

Al Qaeda, according to the inside guys, was behind the recent embassy attack in Yemen. Steve Clemons is worried it augurs a follow-on, which would play into McCain's hands in the conventional thinking. This is the Rovian analysis that the Osama tape helped Bush in the last week of the 2004 campaign. But surely there is a way to show people that the boobs in charge have allowed this threat to persist and grow?

Can't we ask why we still get wacked after over 4,000 dead soldiers and civilian deaths an order of magnitude higher? After invading two countries and bankrupting ourselves, after using up our military, throwing away our moral authority, after corrupting our ideals and littering the law with deadly precedents, we have to hear again about embassy bombings?

Can't we defend against the "who do you want in charge?" ads with "do we really want these idiots in charge?"