1,934 U.S. soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 have been wounded in Iraq. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Iraq has become a new haven for global terrorists, and now sits on the brink of sectarian civil war. And for this, American taxpayers will soon have paid three hundred billion dollars — $300,000,000,000.00.

Nevertheless, no alternatives to the President’s discredited “stay the course” strategy have emerged in government or among foreign policy elites. Clearly, the status quo is untenable. But implementing an immediate pull-out is neither strategically sound nor logistically possible.

Today, the Center for American Progress released a progressive exit strategy for Iraq. It will ensure the strength of our armed forces, increase chances of stability in Iraq, and culminate with the redeployment of virtually all U.S. forces out of Iraq by 2007. Some details on the plan follow: Read more

Ever since Vietnam, military strategists have agreed using enemy body counts is a useless benchmark for success.

Conrad Crane, director of the Military History Institute at the U.S. Army War College: “It was a pretty useless statistic that did more harm than good.”

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, on attempt to quantify success in Grenada: “We need to stay away from this body count business. It caused us terrible trouble in Vietnam and it will cause us terrible trouble here.”

Gen. Tommy Franks, 3/18/02: “You know we don’t do body counts.”

Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, 11/2/03: “We don’t do body counts on other people.”

The Washington Post, however, reported last week:

Using enemy body counts as a benchmark, the U.S. military claimed gains against Abu Musab Zarqawi’s foreign-led fighters last week even as they mounted their deadliest attacks on Iraq’s capital.

Question: Why is the Pentagon now using enemy body counts as a measure of success/failure?