L -- dittos to your thoughts on the article and our alternatives as you stated them. However, both you and Dr. Krauthammer left one thing unstated and that was to fail in Iraq (and withdrawal is failure - we shouldn't kid ourselves on that) is to set in motion the eventual attacks in America. Actually, it seems you didn't so much leave it unstated as simply a fact that should be understood and accepted.
EPWR -- your Patton comment was absolutely on point.
All -- generally, doesn't this whole matter really stem from the post-WW One beginnings of Iraq as a nation when tribalism and sectarianism were simply ignored in order to draw some lines on the map? Seems to me what we are advocating is to roll the clock back so these realities are part of the solution.
I agree entirely that we have to stay in Iraq and win in Iraq. I think, unfortunately, that we are all just beginning to realize the stakes - and the players - in this game.
I don't think we should get involved in inter-Muslim or inter-ethnic disputes, but unfortunately at the beginning, we were following the British/French model of picking a Muslim group that we perceived to be more favorable to our interests. This meant that, since the Baathists were Sunnis, we naively thought that the Shias would be our friends. Big mistake.
We have to regard Islam as a whole, because even when they are killing each other, they regard it as a whole vis a vis the infidel. There are certainly good people among them and certainly those who probably do not want us dead and wish that the whole thing would just go away. But unless we are ruthless in putting down their aggressive pretensions, even the "good" Muslims,that is, the non-violent ones, are going to suffer from the insane death cult of which they are members. We are doing no favors to the moderates by tolerating the others.