NationStates Jolt Archive


Pullout of Iraq?

Deleuze
28-06-2005, 17:30
Personally, I think this is perhaps the worst thing the United States could do right now. Whether you supported the war or not, you should still be able to see that we should finish what we've started.

I'd like to hear the arguments saying why we should pull out of Iraq. If you agree with me, post too.
Vetalia
28-06-2005, 17:32
Pulling out would help us as much as pulling out of Lebanon did in the 80's. You embolden the terrorists, destabilize the country before it can fully defend itself, and pretty much sell out the people to whatever extremist theocrat or dictator can gather the biggest army.
Heron-Marked Warriors
28-06-2005, 17:33
Damn unilateral Americans doing everything on their own. Its like nobody else would help them.

Oh, wait...
Sinuhue
28-06-2005, 17:33
At some point after ejaculation, this is a good idea. Or it just happens on its own :D
Carnivorous Lickers
28-06-2005, 17:37
At some point after ejaculation, this is a good idea. Or it just happens on its own :D


yeah- if the guy's too small or he rolls over to sleep.
Deleuze
28-06-2005, 17:37
At some point after ejaculation, this is a good idea. Or it just happens on its own :D
Haha. But that begs the question: Has the US ejaculated in Iraq yet :eek:?
Sinuhue
28-06-2005, 17:37
yeah- if the guy's too small or he rolls over to sleep.
Hear that, USA? DON'T ROLL OVER!
Vetalia
28-06-2005, 17:38
Haha. But that begs the question: Has the US ejaculated in Iraq yet :eek:?

Hey, look at the size of Florida. We've got the biggest penisula of any country on Earth! ;)
Sinuhue
28-06-2005, 17:39
Haha. But that begs the question: Has the US ejaculated in Iraq yet :eek:?
I'm not sure...but I do suspect it has indeed impregnated the political system with its seed...so the answer is probably yes. The next question is...will it continue to screw the Iraqis? :D

*analogy taken too far...*
Carnivorous Lickers
28-06-2005, 17:39
I agree totally- make sure the job is done. Make sure we have a strong pro US government in place so we arent required to send another force there in a couple of years.
Carnivorous Lickers
28-06-2005, 17:41
Hear that, USA? DON'T ROLL OVER!


Thats my female/foreign policy. Fuck them once really good. Then fuck them again. My name is the only one they will scream from that point on.
Haidrian
28-06-2005, 17:45
to pull out of Iraq at this piont would probably destroy what support we have
in the middle east, and would leave a very weak government open all the preditations of the non-native "insurectionists" :sniper:
Grays Hill
28-06-2005, 17:46
If we pull out of Iraq right now, then somebody just like Saddam would come in and take over, and the entire war would have been for nothing. We need to stay in Iraq. We need to be looking at the big picture here. WW2 was 60 years ago, and we still have troops in Europe and Japan. It will not suprise me if the US keeps a base there. After all, as the worlds super power (even if just for the moment), you need to be able to strike anywhere at anytime. Bases in Iraq would insure that option, in the event that Israel wont allow us to base our operations from their soil.
The South Islands
28-06-2005, 17:52
I hope we pull out immeadiately. They, along with the rest of the world, do not want us there.
Deleuze
28-06-2005, 17:53
I hope we pull out immeadiately. They, along with the rest of the world, do not want us there.
But they'd rather have us there than another Saddam, or a repressive theocracy. Any other "reasons?"
Ilek-Vaad
28-06-2005, 17:55
Make sure the job is done? Okay, which job? The job of destroying Iraq's WMD capability.............oops, already done, none there.

The job of stopping Iraq's dictator from brutalizing his own people? Almost done, as soon as we Americans stop doing it ourselves.

The job of democratizing Iraq? I voted for George W. the first time around because he made the following statement 'The United States should not be involved in nation building' and now that's exactly what we are doing.

The job of rebuilding Iraq? Not going so well, Halliburton and it's subsidiaries have handed giant billion dollar bills to the American taxpayer, but there is still no electricity in Baghdad.

The job of fighting terrorism? Iraq has now become a major selling point for terrorists, the world is now less secure against terrorism than it was before the Iraqi invasion.

The main problem is that the 'job' changes everytime Bush and his lackeys fail at one task. THE job of the American government should be to protect and provide for American Citizens. Sending American Citizens to die in Iraq does not do this.

It is also problematic that the American Government won't plan an 'exit strategy'. Rumsfeld , Cheney and Bush have equated and exit strategy with 'cutting and running'. The government and the military need a clear and concise strategy of how, when and under what circumstances the United States will withdraw and consider the task completed, like in the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, fighting a war with no strategy to end it, is just pointless dangerous and stupid, like in Korea, Viertnam and Iraq.

George Bush and his team need to cleary and concisely come clean and say exactly what we are fighting for, how it will be acomplished and how we will know it is accomplished and what we will do to get out when it is accomplished. That is sound thinking and good strategy.

Don't go to war unless you have an end plan for the war. Show some respect for our fighting men and women by giving them a clear and concise goal, not an ever shifting rubicon of ideals and vague missions.

Do we pull out immediately? No, but we do need a plan, something that should've been done before we ever went in.
Deleuze
28-06-2005, 18:09
Make sure the job is done? Okay, which job? The job of destroying Iraq's WMD capability.............oops, already done, none there.
And that could come back to haunt us if a theocracy comes to power in the wake of an early US pullout. It could actually become a real threat.

The job of stopping Iraq's dictator from brutalizing his own people? Almost done, as soon as we Americans stop doing it ourselves.
Again, it's inevitable that a dictator of some stripe would come to power now if the US troops left, as democratic infrastructure is weak and the insurgency is strong.

The job of democratizing Iraq? I voted for George W. the first time around because he made the following statement 'The United States should not be involved in nation building' and now that's exactly what we are doing.
Isolationism wasn't a good idea in the 1930s, and it isn't a good idea now. We have a moral obligation to intervene when a people is being horrificially oppressed. Or would you say letting 800,000 Rwandans die was a good thing?

The job of rebuilding Iraq? Not going so well, Halliburton and it's subsidiaries have hamded giant billion dollar bills to the American taxpayer, but there is still no electricity in Baghdad.
Just because it isn't going well doesn't mean we shouldn't stick with it.

The job of fighting terrorism? Iraq has now become a major selling point for terrorists, the world is now less secure against terrorism than it was before the Iraqi invasion.
And this would get better if the US left, seemingly defeated, how? Oh wait.

The main problem is that the 'job' changes everytime Bush and his lackeys fail at one task. THE job of the American government should be to protect and provide for American Citizens. Sending American Citizens to die in Iraq does not do this.
The US has hegemonic power, and we should damn well use it. Or should we not have intervened in World War II?

It is also problematic that the American Government won't plan an 'exit strategy'. Rumsfeld , Cheney and Bush have equated and exit strategy with 'cutting and running'. The government and the military need a clear and concise strategy of how, when and under what circumstances the United States will withdraw and consider the task completed, like in the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, fighting a war with no strategy to end it, is just pointless dangerous and stupid, like in Korea, Viertnam and Iraq.

George Bush and his team need to cleary and concisely come clean and say exactly what we are fighting for, how it will be acomplished and how we will know it is accomplished and what we will do to get out when it is accomplished. That is sound thinking and good strategy.

Don't go to war unless you have an end plan for the war. Show some respect for our fighting men and women by giving them a clear and concise goal, not an ever shifting rubicon of ideals and vague missions.

One of the major problems with modern warfighting is inflexible plans that won't mesh with realities on the ground. An "exit plan" would almost definately equate to a pullout where the situation was almost as bad as it was now, or would be the same as a world without one.
The Nazz
28-06-2005, 18:13
I've argued for a pullout before, and will continue to do so for these reasons.

First off, I'm of the mind that our continued presence is fueling the insurgency, not defeating it. US troops are a touchstone for violence, they unite the opposition in a way that nothing else can. As long as US troops are the main face of the occupation, there will be violence, because we're looked at as usurpers, as empire-builders, and as abusers who don't care about the Iraqi people. Don't try to tell me that that's not the case in reality---it doesn't matter whether the characterization is accurate or not. The perception is out there, and in the wake of continuing violence, will only be strengthened. In short, our public image is irreparably damaged in Iraq, and the best thing we can do if we want to help the Iraqi government is to get out and replace US troops with troops of other nationalities.

Secondly, and I know this may sound contradictory, but it's really just conditional, I don't think there's a long-term single-state solution for ending the violence in Iraq, short of another strongman taking over. I think civil war is inevitable if there's going to be anything resembling a democratic society in Iraq, even if we replace US troops with UN troops. It's a sort of reverse-Vietnam, if you will. The north Vietnamese were fighting for independence from their colonial masters and looking to unite the country--the Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents, once their common enemy is gone, will be looking for dominance in their respective spheres, and the Kurds would likely want to have their own autonomy as well. And if it's going to be a civil war, then we might as well get out of the way, because we can't stop it.

Lastly, while I understand the emotional argument to the "we broke it, we've got to fix it" side, I question the workability of it. I don't think we can fix it, for the reasons I stated above, and frankly, I think we're making the situation worse by being there. It's not worth it to me to have US soldiers continue to die in a poorly planned and unnecessary war that will likely finish in disaster no matter what we do. It's really a matter of cutting our losses now as opposed to later.

So there it is--bound to be an unpopular opinion, but hell, I didn't join this clown show to be popular. :D
Markreich
28-06-2005, 18:16
Hey, look at the size of Florida. We've got the biggest penisula of any country on Earth! ;)

Ever hear of Italy? (Funny that, given what my female friends say about Italians...)

How about India?
German Nightmare
28-06-2005, 18:20
Damn unilateral Americans doing everything on their own. Its like nobody else would help them.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, don't forget Poland!!!
Santa Barbara
28-06-2005, 18:20
Yep, we should pull out. We already liberated the place. We got rid of the dictator. If another dictator shows up? Well, we either support him like we did Saddam, or we get rid of him like we did Saddam. Either way is a lot easier than trying to run a country from halfway around the world, for an indefinite number of years...

Incourage the terrorists, you say? Please. Like a guy who'll blow himself up to kill a bus full of kids is going to say, "Hey, look, the USA didn't pull out of Iraq... I feel discouraged and will definitely not continue being a terrorist now." Or conversely, "Hey! The USA has pulled out of Iraq! TIME FOR TERRORISM!"

Either way, the alleged demented reasonings of criminals is not a good basis for foreign policy. Let them be discouraged or incouraged, who cares? Our first priority should not involve dancing around the daisies, trying not to displease the 'terrorists.'
Vetalia
28-06-2005, 18:23
Ever hear of Italy? (Funny that, given what my female friends say about Italians...)

How about India?

Italy's actual peninsula is smaller (all of it's area is in the balls, so to speak).

India is more width than length, there could be some issues with iraq, which seems better suited for length.
German Nightmare
28-06-2005, 18:27
...
One of the major problems with modern warfighting is inflexible plans that won't mesh with realities on the ground. An "exit plan" would almost definately equate to a pullout where the situation was almost as bad as it was now, or would be the same as a world without one.

Everyone knows that even the best plans lose their value once the first shot is fired.

But to go into a conflict without an exit plan is... *lacking the words here*

What I really don't understand, though: How come that apparently, the U.S. cannot rebuild the power plants / grits and secure/rebuild/improve the waterworks.

That would definitely earn the U.S. some Brownie points. How extremists can simply walk into a waterwork in Baghdad and plant a bomb is beyond me. (Just happened recently!)

If those aren't sites worth guarding (just put a frigging tank in front of the building!), I wonder which are!

At least rebuild the infrastructure that got destroyed during the war and give the Iraqi people a chance for a new start!

People who don't have to worry about water and electricity are much more likely to enjoy their freedom and embrace democracy.
Robot ninja pirates
28-06-2005, 18:30
I was against the war, but now I feel we can't pull out. Iraq is in a fragile state, this could be successful, however they aren't strong enough to stand on their own with the terrorists streaming in from Syria and the threat of another dictator. At this point we have to finish what we started, but work on training the Iraqi police and army so we can leave as soon as possible and they can carry on alone.
Sinuhue
28-06-2005, 18:34
Referendum.
Greedy Pig
28-06-2005, 18:36
Some good points, but it can backfire as well. Unfortunately man ain't that predictable.

In short, our public image is irreparably damaged in Iraq, and the best thing we can do if we want to help the Iraqi government is to get out and replace US troops with troops of other nationalities.


Unfortunately, no other country wants to join in. Plus, UN chickened out. Unless US can barter a deal with other countries to join in if US leaves. But then all of the insurgency ain't just anti-US. If not they wouldn't be bombing themselves but bombing the US. Plus it's also a Jihad.


I think civil war is inevitable if there's going to be anything resembling a democratic society in Iraq

Yup I think so too. But at least US would be there to limit the casualties. It could be worse. Imagine if US pulls out, and the Kurds declare a racial cleansing war? Millions could die.
Ilek-Vaad
28-06-2005, 18:45
And that could come back to haunt us if a theocracy comes to power in the wake of an early US pullout. It could actually become a real threat.

It is a real threat, in Iran and Noth Korea. No one has as of yet located Iraq's weapons WMD's, The man Bush appointed to find them declared that they had all been destroyedand dismatled while UN inspectors were in Iraq.


Again, it's inevitable that a dictator of some stripe would come to power now if the US troops left, as democratic infrastructure is weak and the insurgency is strong.

And it's our job to choose another nations government why? If the Iraqi's haven't got the spine to stand up to a dictator and fight for democracy, why should loyal American troops die and fight for it?


Isolationism wasn't a good idea in the 1930s, and it isn't a good idea now. We have a moral obligation to intervene when a people is being horrificially oppressed. Or would you say letting 800,000 Rwandans die was a good thing?

I'm not saying isolationism is a good idea. What I am saying, is that we also have a moral obligation to our own countrymen to give them a clear strategy and an actual plan to combat such things, instead of just dumping them in a hostile foreign nation, ill-equipped, undermanned and cutting their medical benefits for when they do get home. I'm saying fight these things with a plan.


Just because it isn't going well doesn't mean we shouldn't stick with it.

Stick with a plan that isn't working? Now that's just ignorant. If it's not working fix it!


And this would get better if the US left, seemingly defeated, how? Oh wait.

We were told we were in Iraq to stop terrorism. If we stay, it gets worse, if we leave it gets worse, it's not a position that we should have ever put ourselves into.


The US has hegemonic power, and we should damn well use it. Or should we not have intervened in World War II?

So now you can't read? I citied World War II as a properly planned and executed use of America's power. America should use it's power, but it should be used with some sort of actual plan behind it.


One of the major problems with modern warfighting is inflexible plans that won't mesh with realities on the ground. An "exit plan" would almost definately equate to a pullout where the situation was almost as bad as it was now, or would be the same as a world without one.

Guess what, if you make a plan and it doesen't work. Change it. But having no plan at all is just leaving a huge opening for defeat.

In northern Africa in World War II Rommel drubbed the US forces who acted 'according to plan'. So what did the US do? Well we didn't charge back in with the same plan, or with no plan. We changed the plan, changed the general and Patton ended the Afirkacorps stint in North Africa.
Geecka
28-06-2005, 19:07
I'm of the mind that our continued presence is fueling the insurgency, not defeating it. US troops are a touchstone for violence, they unite the opposition in a way that nothing else can. As long as US troops are the main face of the occupation, there will be violence, because we're looked at as usurpers, as empire-builders, and as abusers who don't care about the Iraqi people. Don't try to tell me that that's not the case in reality---it doesn't matter whether the characterization is accurate or not. The perception is out there, and in the wake of continuing violence, will only be strengthened. In short, our public image is irreparably damaged in Iraq, and the best thing we can do if we want to help the Iraqi government is to get out and replace US troops with troops of other nationalities.

Interestingly enough there was a story about suicide bombings on NPR this morning that theorizes exactly this that the suicide terrorism is fostered by our presence, not lessened. The last minute of this report is what I think applies:

NPR: Suicide Terror Attacks (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4721056)

***********
I apologize if we're way off this topic by the time this posts, or if someone else noted this, I was looking for this story.
Grays Hill
29-06-2005, 02:22
The main problem is that the 'job' changes everytime Bush and his lackeys fail at one task. THE job of the American government should be to protect and provide for American Citizens. Sending American Citizens to die in Iraq does not do this.


Let me tell you something. The death toll in Iraq in January of 2004 was roughly 39 US soldiers. In January of 2004, in the city of Detroit, there were 35 murders. Thats 4 less American Civilian deaths, in one US city, compared to an entire country. So before you start complaining about US deaths in Iraq, please complain about deaths at home.
Santa Barbara
29-06-2005, 02:25
Let me tell you something. The death toll in Iraq in January of 2004 was roughly 39 US soldiers. In January of 2004, in the city of Detroit, there were 35 murders. Thats 4 less American Civilian deaths, in one US city, compared to an entire country. So before you start complaining about US deaths in Iraq, please complain about deaths at home.

Hmm, so they aren't dying in huge numbers... I suppose that makes the senselessness of their death OK then.

By that reasoning, no one should complain about any single individual dying for any reason.

I don't expect that to happen. Apparently deaths mean something even if not WWII-level body counts!
Ilek-Vaad
29-06-2005, 03:47
Let me tell you something. The death toll in Iraq in January of 2004 was roughly 39 US soldiers. In January of 2004, in the city of Detroit, there were 35 murders. Thats 4 less American Civilian deaths, in one US city, compared to an entire country. So before you start complaining about US deaths in Iraq, please complain about deaths at home.


I'm a good American, I complain about BOTH. I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Kroisistan
29-06-2005, 04:01
Hey, look at the size of Florida. We've got the biggest penisula of any country on Earth! ;)

[geographical correction]Actually, the nation(s) with the largest penisula(s) on earth would be Spain and Italy, with the Iberian and Italian Penisulas respectively. Russia is a semi-close third with the Kamtchaska(sp?) Penisula.[/geographical penisula]

As to Iraq... I think we need to stick around. I mean I was extremely opposed to the war in Iraq, but I believe in a strict you break it you buy it policy. We broke the damn place. Now we need to bear the cost of our hubris - it is the decent an honorable thing to do. It would be more wrong than the invasion to have gone into Iraq, thrown around a few bombs, said "have fun with Democracy!" and leave them to chaos.

As to what will happen, I honestly don't think America will support a 12 year occupation at this level of cost, both human and financial. We will be out of Iraq I predict in less than 2 more years, unless Europe, Turkey, Egypt or perhaps even China pitch in, which is probably unlikely as evidenced by how opposed the populations of those nations were to the war in the first place.

My grand prediction is that whatever ends up happening, it will not be the sunshine and roses Darth Cheney seems to think the future holds. Unfortunate, because the people of Iraq will suffer our mistakes.
Douche-bagistan
29-06-2005, 04:25
I hope we pull out immeadiately. They, along with the rest of the world, do not want us there.

let me clarify... the "they" you are talking about is the minority upper-class sunnis who had all the power and oppressed all others. They are the ones that dont like being equal to the shiites and kurds. but the majority of the ppl love us there.. we established the beginnings of democracy. though they live in fear of terrorists... they atleast are free from fear of being picked up off the street and killed for no apparant reason by saddam's boys.
Grays Hill
29-06-2005, 05:44
Hmm, so they aren't dying in huge numbers... I suppose that makes the senselessness of their death OK then.

By that reasoning, no one should complain about any single individual dying for any reason.

I don't expect that to happen. Apparently deaths mean something even if not WWII-level body counts!

I'm not saying that they aren't important and that their deaths are OK. I'm just saying that its their job that they chose to do for their country, and that the people here at home are dieing in far larger numbers. It gets annoying when people are protesting because a few soldiers die each month, when there are many many many more people here at home dieing in a different kind of war. And when a soldier dies, he is given a wonderful funeral, and honor and dignity. What does the average civilian get for getting shot on the corner?
Greedy Pig
29-06-2005, 06:51
Hmm, so they aren't dying in huge numbers... I suppose that makes the senselessness of their death OK then.
By that reasoning, no one should complain about any single individual dying for any reason.
I don't expect that to happen. Apparently deaths mean something even if not WWII-level body counts!

At least the ones in Iraq died doing something for their country and for the Iraqi's as well.

Statistics does count.
Khudros
29-06-2005, 07:18
to pull out of Iraq at this piont would probably destroy what support we have
in the middle east, and would leave a very weak government open all the preditations of the non-native "insurectionists" :sniper:
We have support in the Middle East??? :confused:
That's news to me.


If we pull out of Iraq right now, then somebody just like Saddam would come in and take over, and the entire war would have been for nothing. We need to stay in Iraq. We need to be looking at the big picture here. WW2 was 60 years ago, and we still have troops in Europe and Japan.
Someone just like Saddam, eh? And do you know who that someone would be? You strike me as someone who is making things up as they go.

As for WWII, well like you said that was more than a half century ago, and personally I'd be horrified if our leaders were still making policy decisions based on it. A few important things (Cold War, nuke proliferation, etc) have happened since then that kind of changed the worldly dynamic.
Jello Biafra
29-06-2005, 11:09
I find myself agreeing with Ilek-Vaad. The war was a terrible idea to start with, but pulling out now wouldn't be good. However, as (s)he said, an exit plan is needed. I'm not suggesting that this plan say "We will pull out on date X!" or something like that. But there does need to be a clear list of what needs to be done, and more importantly, in which order. Most of our resources should be concentrated on doing one specific thing at a time, with the rest holding the insurgency at bay. Perhaps we could even do this by region, say, start at the Kuwait border and move north, or from the Kurds and move south.
Or, another plan would be to divide the country up into three regions. Of course, this would piss Turkey off, and perhaps a few other countries. And, of course, it would be harder for Halliburton to rape the land of its resources, but it's still an idea that could be worth considering.
SERBIJANAC
29-06-2005, 11:21
Pullout, Retreat ,run Away Or........die!
New Burmesia
29-06-2005, 11:31
Has anyone actually asked ordinary iraqis if they want troops in Iraq?
Poladsia
29-06-2005, 11:52
Hey, look at the size of Florida. We've got the biggest penisula of any country on Earth! ;)

What about the Horn of Africa? Or the East Asian Subcontinent... you know those countries (southern Myanmar, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore) that looks like a large penisula with Vietnameese/Cambodian balls...?
New Burmesia
29-06-2005, 13:13
apparently it's wild, wet and windy all year round at Cape Horn...
Santa Barbara
29-06-2005, 16:21
I'm not saying that they aren't important and that their deaths are OK. I'm just saying that its their job that they chose to do for their country, and that the people here at home are dieing in far larger numbers. It gets annoying when people are protesting because a few soldiers die each month, when there are many many many more people here at home dieing in a different kind of war. And when a soldier dies, he is given a wonderful funeral, and honor and dignity. What does the average civilian get for getting shot on the corner?

The difference is, the soldiers are in that place because of our foreign policy, whereas domestic crime has nothing to do with our foreign policy, and our foreign policy here is the one under discussion!

At least the ones in Iraq died doing something for their country and for the Iraqi's as well.

Statistics does count.

I hear this "for their country" a lot. How are their deaths doing ANYTHING for our country? Their service is to our country... but that doesn't mean every act done by them is a boon to the nation or the world. What is this "something" anyway? Sounds mighty vague.
Matchopolis
29-06-2005, 16:46
Everyone knows that even the best plans lose their value once the first shot is fired.

But to go into a conflict without an exit plan is... *lacking the words here*

At least rebuild the infrastructure that got destroyed during the war and give the Iraqi people a chance for a new start!

People who don't have to worry about water and electricity are much more likely to enjoy their freedom and embrace democracy.

The exit strategy is leave after the enemy has been pacified enough for the fledgling Iraqi National Guard to train and effectively keep peace. As much as I hate to refer to him, Geraldo Rivera stated during his month in Iraq that America is not rebuilding the infrastructure, America is building the infrastructure. Media doesn't really focus on schools with power for the first time or northern town receiving treated water for the first time. Burning houses are much more interesting.

Baghdad's main water treatment center is right next to Camp Solidarity home to 1,200 or so soldiers. As long as we use Iraqi labor there will be incidents of sabotage.
Laerod
29-06-2005, 16:51
Personally, I think this is perhaps the worst thing the United States could do right now. Whether you supported the war or not, you should still be able to see that we should finish what we've started.

I'd like to hear the arguments saying why we should pull out of Iraq. If you agree with me, post too.
I agree. I don't think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but now that we did, leaving will cause chaos. It's turned into the battleground of the war on terror that Bush falsely claimed it was before.
Ilek-Vaad
29-06-2005, 17:15
I find myself agreeing with Ilek-Vaad. The war was a terrible idea to start with, but pulling out now wouldn't be good. However, as (s)he said, an exit plan is needed. I'm not suggesting that this plan say "We will pull out on date X!" or something like that. But there does need to be a clear list of what needs to be done, and more importantly, in which order. Most of our resources should be concentrated on doing one specific thing at a time, with the rest holding the insurgency at bay. Perhaps we could even do this by region, say, start at the Kuwait border and move north, or from the Kurds and move south.
Or, another plan would be to divide the country up into three regions. Of course, this would piss Turkey off, and perhaps a few other countries. And, of course, it would be harder for Halliburton to rape the land of its resources, but it's still an idea that could be worth considering.

Another thing that we tend to forget is that countries like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan etc.... are all artifical constructions.

In Europe, France was founded by French (basically same language, same customs and culture) , Italy by Italians and so on and so forth, and international borders were eventually sorted out after hundreds of years of war and diplomacy.

The Middle East by contrast has always been dominated by empires (Persian Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire etc...) and these empires historically drew borders based on their administrative needs, not along ethnic or cultural lines. Iraq was 'created' when the French and British punished Turkey after World War I and set up 'Mandates' in former Turkish territories. The British lumped Kurds, Turks, Arabs and Persians ( all with different cultures and languages for the most part) all together in Iraq, they didn't want to be a single country, but they couldn't resist British military might.

Now we zoom to modern day and those same ethnic groups still don't necessarily want to live together, the Kurds have been fighting for a 'Kurdistan' for nearly one hundred and twenty five years, the southern Shia have tried to alternately become independant or part of Iran. These cultures have very litle in common to start with and the fact that they were forced to compromise with each other under colonial rule means that they never had a chance to sort out their own borders and own independant sovereign states.

I would personally see no issue with allowing Iraq to split into two or three independant nations, even if it meant civil war. Civil wars invariably bring about closure and stabilty in the long term.