Decius wrote:

My view has been that we should stay unless it is more destructive to our interests and those of the people of Iraq to stay than it is to leave.

but what about the political space?
it would seem the surge has shown some success militarily but if the point was to create an opportunity for the politicians, those at the center figuratively and literally went on holiday, so it has provided an opportunity to retrench and rearm however hopefully the Anbar model of a grassroots political shift has changed the longterm dynamic

when the troops start to draw down will the scale of the violence resume?

clearly none of the politians in Baghdad see or saw the current Whitehouse changing the military deployment seriously - they didn't feel forced to compromise

so as of jan 2009?

there was no guarantee the surge would have any effect on the escalating violence - i hate to say so but Bush is to be commended that his gamble partly worked -- it seemed such a move out of left field at the time, after the november elections

are American forces merely damping down the fire?

how realistic is 12-18 months for the new Iraqi army to step up to the plate?

if the center fails then US forces might shepherd partition?

by invading Iraq Bush needlessly created a huge fucking mess BUT if America leaves Iraq a better place yet America leaves less hung-ho, burnt but not beaten, with pride and wiser, less prone to semi-imperialistic adventures, still ready to hear the call, tempered, a better policeman??

RE: The Iraq war | Why they should stay | Economist.com