Iraq.

I'm going to start today with the story pointed out by Newsguy in the comments that the US Congress has voted "to slash the budget of a government traumatic brain injury research." With that particular injury being so prevalent in this war, that is unconscionable.

They've held up their end of the bargain, we have to hold up ours.

Two more soldiers were killed south of Baghdad.

Iraq's Shia Interior Minister Bolani barely escaped a roadside bomb in Dora, one of the four neighborhoods targeted in the current US security operation. Two bystanders died including a 12 year old boy.

As a look at our future in Iraq (or at least the plan,) "A force of around 4000 British troops will stay behind in Iraq for an indefinite period even after all provinces controlled by the UK are handed over to the Baghdad government in nine months time."

And the Brits won't be the only Westerners staying in Iraq, "Oil Majors Maneuver for Prime Position in Iraq."

The Christian Science Monitor makes the observation, "To some experts, the call-up of Marine Corps reservists indicates that the war is likely to last longer and be more hard-fought than earlier official predictions....."The call-up suggests the Pentagon envisions current troop levels in Iraq through the summer of 2008, with these guys going in the summer of 2007 for one year."

There's the excellent piece in the WaPo looking at Sadr and his strategy to consolidate power and simply wait out the US occupation, "Unless directly provoked, Sadrists will lay low, because they know the Americans' time in Iraq is coming to an end," he said. "Why would they risk another major loss of fighters if it's not necessary? Americans in their eyes are already defeated -- they're going to leave."

Last, Peter Baker slices to the marrow of the spin: Bush's new Iraq argument: It could be worse. (Or Froomkin's look at the language and reality of the Bush spin.)