One of the worst elements of the occupation of Iraq continues to be the civilian death toll and the resulting refugee crisis it has spawned, with neighboring countries - in a region where water is scarce - taking in millions of displaced Iraqis.
Digby's got full coverage of the issue, which really does just boil down the continuing soundbite of "If we don't fight them there, they'll follow us here." It's a shameful and tragic outcome that the same elements of the American body politic who refuse to set timetables because we can't "abandon" the Iraqis are doing nothing at all to expedite the removal of those in the country who put their lives on the line for us every day.
But that's really the bottom line of this endeavor: it's shameful and tragic. Rarely a day goes by that I don't wonder how things might have gone if we had a real president who believed in cooperation and built a true coalition to liberate Iraq from an insane tyrant. Would an insurgency have festered if a true international force with overwhelming numbers of troops and a full compliment of UN diplomats and global cash to jump start Iraq had raced through the desert in 2003? I suspect historians will play that 'what if' game for generations. In the meantime, Iraq suffers, Iraqis die, and the United States can't find a good policy to follow the bad.
Updated:: The Washington Post has a good piece on Ambassador Crocker's frustrations with the pace of resettlement today.