Thanks for the reply. The point I was trying to make is that, regardless of prevailing perceptions and number of hostiles towards the US in Iraq, US forces will remain because the alternative would be far more costly, as you pointed out. So if, hypothetically, there were over even 1 million hostiles chanting "death to America" we would still remain. In other words there is no "critical mass" of negative perceptions or hostiles that would force us out. So the numbers will never dictate whether we stay or go, but they will reflect the human toll and cost of each day we stay.
Sounds like we agree! I don't like these Al Sadr people. It was a tremendous mistake by the US to let that animal go in 2004. I understand we had a hard fight in Fallujah on our hands at the time and had to put off one or the other, but Al Sadr was the long term bigger threat than Fallujah, whose terrorists could have been contained until after we had killed Al Sadr and wiped out his forces. I think we got the priority wrong. That said, it's nice to see Fallujah now relatively stable, but Al Sadr is still there acting as an agent provocateur for Iran and right at the moment Israel is hitting Shiite terrorists in Lebanon. Not good. I'd prefer to not have Al Sadr there as a 5th column for Iran to manipulate as revenge for Israel's actions in Lebanon. I have a sense a big clash is coming with Al Sadr's forces. President Rat Face of Iran will never let that card go unplayed in all this. Regardless, we'll prevail, they'll be destroyed.