1,000

That's the number U.S. troops killed in Iraq as of today, according to the Pentagon. The reason this fact should be profoundly newsworthy is because of how incredibly low that number is relative to what an engagement like this might have cost if we invaded, say, North Korea or Iran (or just about anywhere else in the world, for that matter). Of course, to the degree that it matters anymore, common wisdom says this story will hurt popular opinion of Bush and his handling of the war. That's truly remarkable when you think of what this country put up with from war-time presidents during the last century in terms of casualty rates. Of all the major conflicts-- WWI, WWII, North Korea, Viet Nam-- I would argue that all except WWII seemed to offer no more compelling of a rationale for war than Bush offered for Iraq, yet we the public put up with hundreds of thousands of lost sons and brothers in those times. What gives? Why do we as a nation now have so little tolerance for sacrificing the lives of our G.I.s in overseas military exploits? I'll tell you-- it has everything to do with the fact that we've all had a chance to actually see on the big screen and up close on our tv sets what war really looks like-- and we don't like the idea of sending our children into that hell.

Curiously, this story stayed up on Yahoo's top stories for all of about a half an hour, and CNN isn't running with it at all. . .