Once that is understood the next step to acknowledge is that we will not leave Iraq for decades. Iraq is now a territory from which we can project power throughout the region without having to seek permission from reluctant allies and without having to undertake a six months build-up of forces.
We are not winning in Iraq. We are not losing either. The war is currently bogged down in stalemate. Progress has been made but no place in the country is absolutely safe. And, comparisons to 1945 Germany and Japan are false. Those nations had been reduced to rubble in both the literal and figurative sense. Their populations had been pounded into full submission (with truly rare exceptions) by years of all out war and carpet bombing of civilian centers. They were ready for any force that would impose safety and order. None of this is true in Iraq.
There is a logic to disengagement short of withdrawal.
We have given the historically warring factions of Iraq a common enemy if not a common goal. As long as we are there in the numbers that we are today the Shiites, Sunnis, Baathists, Turkmen leaders all have the luxury of winning support within their ranks by attacking us. This does not suggest unity among these factions, although the Turkmen are associated with the Sunnis. (And, because of their anti-Kurd activities, the Turkmen receive aid from Turkey, even though there is no tribal connection. This aid from Turkey to the Turkmen finds its way into the hands of the Sunni and is used against us.)
Once we announce a shedule for down-sizing these factions will be forced to readjust their sights with attention given to securing the biggest slice of post-occupation Iraq. This would have the effect of moderating the Shiites, who have the most to gain. Additionally, Turkey would need to rethink its support of the Sunni-associated Turkmen.
Iran....with the US in Iraq in force Iran has no fear of an anarchical neighbor, a chaos next door that they cannot afford. There are significant internal and exiled dissident Iranian groups that would find feasible operating room within a chaotic Iraq from which they could stage and support insurrection within Iran. A US draw down of forces would make Iran face the consequences of continued support across the border.
Syria could be dealt with through the threat that the forces pulled from Iraq duties could be re-directed toward Damascus. The establishment of RCT sized "Fort Apache" style FOBs, removed from the population centers and into the barren western desert would enforce that threat, while at the same time removing our troops from the areas where they are most vulnerable. This last is already underway.
The alternatives to a limited but sizeable withdrawal seem to be endless stalemate or following the French model. Neither of these options seems palatable.
By and large, I like your ideas.
While they disagree with some of my opinions at some points, they still make sense and provide other options. We should look fairly at reasonable options.
I especially like your thoughts on what a partial drawdown will accomplish....taking the focus off of the US and placing it on what each of those groups think a "post-US Iraq" should look like -- especially what their piece of the pie should look like. Selfish interest could well make for interesting infighting between the power groups.
Divide and conquer.
I also like the desert-based FOB idea. Thoughtful.
Thanks. Good response.