1. A phased withdrawal doesn't solve the problem it just moves us further away from it.

2. This is laughable. "We have publicly denounced you for your current involvement in Iraq. We have brought or threatened to bring sanctions against you. Oh, and there was that whole Axis of Evil thing but, hey, can you help us out in Iraq now?" What do you think that their help would cost us? And then of course there is the fact that these are Israel's two biggest enemies.

3. Trisection? This one has been examined and reexamined to death. Somebody is going to get the short end of the stick resources wise and likely it will be the Sunnis. They are already the most violent group and Trisection really wouldn't benefit them at all. Not to mention that the Shia section will probably be scarfed up by Iran and even if it is not it will still be heavily influenced and infiltrated by Iran.

4. This is probably least undesirable but it still not desirable. I don't think this one will work for the simple fact that in order for it to work we would have to convince the the Iraqis that they want to change leadership and they don't seem particularly inclined to do so. We can't simply replace him because anybody that we put in place will have no credibility.


Some of these courses may lead to us getting out, I don't think any of them will lead to success. Westhawk believes that setting the conditions for ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis might be the only solution but that ignores the fact that the majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni. I doubt very much that they will stand by let the Shia ethnically cleanse the Sunnis. I think that what we need to do is stop with the whole "We have plenty of troops on ground," meme and actually send enough troops to do what we need to do. Unfortunately, as Max Boot (who should probably be appointed SECDEF for life) points out, that is unlikely to happen and we will be left only with the option of getting out without cleaning up the mess that we helped create.

SFC W