I’ve read somewhere that even as deaths are up during these war years as 150 per 100,000, under Saddam the average was 100 per 100,000. But it is all dependent upon the credibility of the reporting as well as the area of “home” involved. For many who formerly felt secure, Iraq is now a place of danger, upheaval and death. For many others it may have become a place of fighting back instead of just plain fear suffered in silence. In any case, the odds have changed; life as once they knew it is no more. The spatial definitions as you say, have changed completely.

But looking back cannot help much in this case and maybe the need for the U.S. to leave is imperative because the Iraqi people need to settle this themselves now that they have the freedom to do so. If they choose to fight each other in the name of religion or ethnicity–which they couldn’t do before–so be it. Personally, I feel that since they never will agree, the best alternative may be to separate and split off Iraq into the factions they choose to remain to be. Once again, the wisdom of Solomon need prevail.

But I think the point goes more to how people often prefer some to other numbers. Iraq, according to those who are reporting (and living) this, is a mess, but mainly for those who have to live there or who have to flee to surrounding areas. All spatial definitions have changed: home, well being, place.

Cole’s point does not go to staying or going. Honest accounting is one of his aims.