70,000

I'm not sure how different it is to offer a troop withdrawal without a timeline, as Jack Murtha did today, as opposed to one with one for Republicans; in their minds surrender is surrender (even when it's not). But one thing he said made me wince:

While he opposes leaving any U.S. troops behind, Murtha said he'll bring an amendment to the House floor next week that requires the White House to start redeployment within 60 days of enactment, without setting a deadline for completion.

"I'm hearing signals. They (Republicans) are trying to work out a deal where we leave 70,000 troops over there ... That's the White House telling them to do that, I'm convinced," he told reporters.

"I'm hoping there will be an agreement between Democrats and Republicans and the Senate and the House and the White House and I think you'll see that happen. I think you'll see that happen by September, October," he said.

I believe that this is starting to be the Washington consensus, to pull back troops (which they have to do, the rotation schedule demands it) while leaving a smaller force in place. What nobody seems to ever explain is, just what can 70,000 soldiers do that 160,000 are unable to do? How would you have these 70,000 go about their business? Do you want them to go out on smaller patrols? Try to control a civil war with less forces?

There's actually nothing that 70,000 nen can do to secure Iraq, they'd just be a sacrifice to the egos of those who don't what to admit failure. We can't unshit the bed, and the impact of 70,000 foreigners with a continued American presence is not only insufficient, but far worse than the impact of leaving the country and taking the American face completely off this thing. A residual force is maybe the worst possible solution. But it's a compromise, which is why it's seen as the wise and sensible thing to do by the David Broders of the world.