Incredipunditry!

Here's a post in which RUFNKM, in an effort to bolster readership and combat our continued devolution, tries to act just like one of the big time bloggers. No, we're not going to claim fealty to some political party that went extinct in the 1800's just to make it easy to duck contemporary political labels (and thus avoid guilty-by-association with people who otherwise totally agree with us). We're just going to link to something written by someone smarter than us and offer minimal analysis. To that end, for the duration of this post I will not be known as "jayinbmore", but instead will take on the identity of "Incredipundit!". I can already tell this is so totally going to rule.

Incredipundit! notes that the most compelling reason for the US to continue to have a presence in Iraq is to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state. Over at the The Duck of Minerva, Rodger Payne makes the case that Iraq could very easily be on its way to being a failed state. But then he makes the following statement:

Of course, the key question is whether the US troop presence increases or reduces this risk. Unfortunately, none of the information I've gather in this post can answer that question definitively.

Incredipundit! says "Indeed."