The massive unstated assumption on Iraq

In all the "whether we should stay in Iraq" rhetoric either from the White House or the media, there is always the unstated assumption that staying in Iraq will eventually make things better.

In the NIE, this line, "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight," is being presented as some sort of proof that the US presence in Iraq should be maintained. But that argument rests on the assumption that a continued US presence will in fact produce a situation where the jihadists will have been perceived to have "failed."

The entire "stay in Iraq" argument is predicated on two beliefs, 1) That if the US stays for an extended period, we will get a better outcome. 2) That Iraq is the best use of resources at this time. But are both of those suppositions true?

What actual evidence is there that a continued US presence using the current strategy for 2 years, 5 years, 10 years will produce a situation in which the jihadi's self perception will be that they've failed? In the current situation, what proof is there that Iraq will emerge a unified, peaceful country?

Would the US be better off pulling back from the direct role in fighting the Iraqi insurgency, and instead focus its efforts on resolving Israel/Palestine or Afghanistan/Pakistan?

I don't know, but as I look at the results of the Iraq thus far, I find it difficult to accept that staying the course is the best option. (More worldwide terrorism, more regional terrorism, a greater threat to the US from Iraq as anti-American terrorists train there, greater regional instability, greater threats to US oil supplies, an ascendant Iran, a diminution of US standing and influence around the world, the crippling of the US Army, the inability to place credible military threats against N. Korea/Iran or elsewhere, a gap in our focus that has allowed China to strengthen its worldwide ties.)

Iraq is possibly the largest policy decision facing the US right now, and the entire debate seems to be misinformed by the assumption that "staying the course" will eventually produce a more positive outcome.

If we've learned anything from the counter example of the Bush presidency, it is that fully informed decisions are usually far more effective than binary decisions, and the debate right now doesn't seem to be fully informed by the complex reality.

(Just for context, I'm not an advocate for immediate total withdrawal. I support a "modified Murtha" plan. Over 12-18 months transfer provinces 2 or 3 at a time. Reduce the in country force to about 20,000 fighting men (probably 50,000 total,) pull those forces back to bases way out in the desert, way away from anybody and work solely in a support role when requested. Then, over an extended time phase out those troops as well. The Iraq war must be won by the Iraqis. Not just for the practical reasons, but because the Iraqi government must win the battles, not the US, in order to establish a stable long term government. )