Nobody, certainly not I, is denying that leaving will have bad consequences.
I am weighing one set of bad consequences against another set of bad consequences
Based on all tha points I mention, I conclude that the US can not stay indefinitely and could not stay, even if it wanted to.

This post, and the comments supporting it, have not convinced me to change my mind, because they present no rational weighing of pros and cons.
Those happy to make decisions that way, are welcome to do so.
I am not one of those people.

Since you made the point that they were only “western” sources lets look at the list:

ABC – ABC News (USA)
AFP – Agence France-Presse
AP – Associated Press
AWST – Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz – Al Jazeera network
BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation
BG – Boston Globe
Balt. Sun – The Baltimore Sun
CT – Chicago Tribune
CO – Commondreams.org
CSM – Christian Science Monitor
DPA – Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX – Fox News
GUA – The Guardian (London)
HRW – Human Rights Watch
HT – Hindustan Times
ICRC – International Committ of the Red Cross
IND – The Independent (London)
IO – Intellnet.org
JT – Jordan Times
LAT – Los Angeles Times
MEN – Middle East Newsline
MEO – Middle East Online
MER – Middle East Report
MH – Miami Herald
NT – Nando Times
NYT – New York Times
Reuters – (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC – South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH – Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News – The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times – The Times (London)
TOI – Times of India
TS – Toronto Star
UPI – United Press International
WNN – World News Network
WP – Washington Post

So what do you consider western anyway?

I would say the opposite. You want to leave show me how to do so without having everything get worse.

This assumes our natural state of being is in Iraq. I have to categorically disagree with that point of view.

I think one viewpoint is often ignored: if we leave, things do get worse. And this is acceptable. Things get horribly worse. And this is acceptable. There might be a humanitarian crisis. And this is acceptable because, of all possible solutions, this is inevitable.

It may be right, and it may be wrong, but it’s quite often misstated.

And as they say its no accurate count, and *thosands are not reported. *And by thousands they likely mean proably hundreds of thousands by now… Given how many deaths are reported locally and not internationally, and the cultural skew to not report deaths in the first place.

Thus it is a absolutely a discredited source as so far as meaningful measure of deaths in Iraqi. If one wants to use causalty figures both the UN and Lancet studies are actually a much more useful basis.

Interetignly enough, the first Lancet study and its’ contemporary UN report were actually not that far apart once you factored out that they were counting different things as casualties. The later Lancet howver was much higher afaik.

Casey….quit making crap up. Over 90% of military enlistees are high school graduates and must take the asvab. Those that are not (ged, attendance degree, home schooled) must get a higher score on the asvab. Geniuses? Maybe not but everyone can read. Any felony requires a waver and you better have a good story and forget about it if it’s drug, sex, or violence related. Hell even to many tickets can keep you out. Did you know they do a credit check? Thats right if your credit is to bad and they don’t think you can afford your bills on military pay they don’t let you enlist.
Baseless propaganda at it’s best!

We have troops going in for their 5th tour of duty. We have badly wounded troops being sewn together and sent back to fight. We’ve lowered recruiting standards to allow criminals, illiterates, and psychos to enlist.

The military is near a breaking point.

You want us to stay in Iraq another few years?

With what army?

Answer that question before you go on about how awful it’ll be when we leave.

In the meantime, what is the assessment about how long it would be before a fed-up public starts re-enacting the ugliness of the Viet Nam war? We’re already at war with one another. Is tearing the country completely apart such a small price to pay?

And, of course, the same world that will criticize us whenever we do leave, will be ctiticizing us (although offering no help) every day that we stay, MVDG.

Before agreeing with anyone, I would need to see a better plan than ‘not withdrawing’.

We should do what we can on the humanitarian front– which we have not been doing up til now, but its obvious that the surge will not bring stability to Iraq with their own government refusing to meet any of 18 benchmarks set up for it. Why do our soldiers need to die for their inaction?

Reports I’ve seen indicate that half the doctors in Iraq have fled the country. People are dying who would otherwise be living if medical care was even up to the standards of Saddamistan. How many people die of heat prostation due to the lack of electricity? How many die as a result of increased criminal activity due to the war chaos? How many die trying to escape Iraq?

There are violent deaths but my guess is that is the much smaller portion of deaths due to this war. Whether it’s 200,000, 500,000 or a million no one will ever know because most muslim burials occur almost immediately and cannot be counted by authorities.

Michael – Have you given any thought that maybe the Iraq problem is too big and too far gone that the US CANNOT make the mess better? Not ever problem in the world has a solution! Should the US stay for 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years? How much money should we pour into Iraq. $1 trillion, $5 trillion, $100 trillion? In your mind when is enough – enough? How many more “Friedman units” should we allow before even you are willing to throw in the towel?

But from what I can understand of the internal sectarian forces as well as the external sectarian forces (Iran, Saudi, Turkey, and Syria) whenever we leave in the future, Iraq will have it’s total civil war. We cannot stop the Shites from doing whatever it takes to be the power brokers in Iraq and Saudia Arabia and the rest of the Sunni arab countries will NEVER allow Shite domination of Iraq. In that civil war, look to Turkey to solve it’s Kurdistan problem once and for all and maybe pick up oil fields (badly needed) in the bargain.

If we stay longer we are not preventing the eventual civil war – only postponing it. All we do in the interim is lose American lives and another $100 billion or so annually. Whatever we rebuild in the interim gets broken again (look at the electricity, oil and water statistics). Just like the US needed it’s civil war to resolve it’s existential questions, so does Iraq.

How many Iraqi refugees should the Netherlands take in?

is not intended as an estimate of total deaths. Its methodology is to record only war-related violent deaths that are reported by at least two approved international media sources. (emphasis mine) This generates a record of deaths that is accepted by the media that publish these reports in the first place. Its authors acknowledge that thousands of deaths go unreported in their database, but they say they cannot prevent politicians and the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths.

The truth is the people who will lose the most by the US staying in Iraq are the US solders not the Iraqi’s. People want the US out and how bad it is that solders are dieing and yes is is horrible, but it’s not even the tiniest fraction of civilian deaths that will occur because we left. Why the horrible civilian body counts are being used to show we need to leave I don’t get, they will pale in comparison to what will happen when we are gone.

Turkey will be involved is a border war with Kurdistan, they are half way there and we are still in country. What will happen when we are gone? Iran has hundreds (if not thousands) of people in Iraq right now, some how they will just stop when we leave? Saudi is scared to death that Iran will gain to much power and are scared of the Shi’a becoming to strong of a presence in the area. At the very least you will have a proxy war in Iraq. This is not an issue to be decided by your feelings for GW.

Others say: America is inflaming more terrorism and causing more damage to the region with every day it stays there.

Should we take an intternational poll and act
accordingly?
Alternatively, which countries, exactly, should we try to please?

We will be blamed, no matter what we do.
Perhaps we should consider our own interests a little, too?
How many lives and how much of national wealth are required to satisfy this world and its many wise men?

you haven’t fixed it yet have you? And… America caused this war, America should have the patience to stay as long as it takes.

Well, how about a little help then? Could you send back the Koninklijke Landmacht? Heck, I’d settle for some Korps Nationale Reserve.

And perhaps a few more than 1300 or so?

I still say a relatively gradual withdraw is the best option. We have genocide now, while we are there. Its not going to get better unless someone can dig up a few 100,000 more troops, and even then odds are against it, and do nothing or reconcilliation.

I would argue that taking our medicine now and seeing where the chips may fall is the far better better than later. Will it be ugly? Oh most probably yes… As ugly as staying forever? No.

Just look at attitudes for cooperation among Iraqi factions even a few years ago compared to now. Postions have hardened and ill will is rampant. Our staying is clearly not helping this. In fact, by keeping a partial lid on things we are increasing pressure, not releaving it.

Also we about 2 more years of Bush. Does anyone really think this administration has a prayer of being effective in Iraq? No? Thought not. Historcally the odds are clear. If we stay, W and crew will find a way to make it worse.