hiredgun

Unfortunately, there are no good choices left in front of us, only choices.

I think there are a lot of things Moore isn't taking into account here, strategically speaking: most importantly, the consequences of growing Iranian influence (control) over Iraq through its ties to the Shia government and its funding of the 'death-squads'. No regional actor has gained as much from the US decision in 2003 as Iran. We've removed their greatest military check and turned it into a relative asset, and we ourselves are far too tied down to engage them or prevent them from developing nukes. Combine that with Iranian leverage in Lebanon and high projected oil revenues over at least the next several years, and we're very clearly losing the battle for the region.

Iran will almost certainly come out on top following the bloodshed that will take place in Iraq if we leave now.

Then again, Iran will probably come out on top anyway, so maybe it's moot.

There are really very few options. With the downward slide the country has taken in recent months, the prospects for re-internationalizing the problem are grim or nonexistent. I'm not sure what a massive McCain-esque increase in troop levels would be meant to accomplish. It might succeed in briefly stamping out violence, though it would be a step backwards in terms of getting the Iraqi government to 'stand up'. But absent a nearly unlimited supply of troops, money, patience, and the will to really substantially apply ourselves to state-building over the next decade, I don't see it having a permanent effect.

And then there's the 'leave now' option, which virtually guarantees a subservient Iranian client state over probably two-thirds of what is now Iraq. Of course, the greater the prospects of a stronger Iran, the worse the prospects of our being able to deal with Iran diplomatically in the coming years as opposed to resorting to war.

So I'd say we're proper fucked. I will say that this is something that experts in the country should be able to debate without having to deal with the ridiculous stigma of 'cut and run' as cowardice.

EDIT: So as to more directly answer the OP: I don't have a very strong opinion on the question posed because I don't feel at this point that any one option is clearly much stronger than the others. I do think a 'change of course' on the level of strategy might be wise in principle. I also lean slightly towards withdrawal simply because while no possible endgame looks great for us right now, we can at least stop hemorrhaging troops and money in time to stop and contemplate the next phase of this conflict, if one will arise.

In the meantime there will be ways to use those resources to repair some of the damage done to our clout in the region. I think the obvious step is to re-engage in the peace process... we've all seen the disastrous results of our disengagement from that process over the last six years. The harder step will be dealing with the direct consequences of our withdrawal, i.e. what to do with Iran and what is left of Iraq. The shape of that policy will depend on how things go down once we leave, but this too, I think is probably preferable to either 'staying the course' or massively ramping up our presence.