We have never had a clear understanding of what our role in Iraq is or should be.
Unless we reach such an understanding soon, we will be fighting about it for generations.

Speak up, Mr. President, without hiding behind the 'democratically elected' placebo.

The short answer is we probably cannot afford to remain the World's policeman for very much longer and we are going to have to start building an alternative to our security needs above and beyond our military.

Iraq, by contrast, is still extremely slpintered, and civilian strife has not gone away, despite the events due to the Anwar 'awakening.”
Many Sunnis want the US to stay as protection FROM their government, which they often experience via contact with the Shiite dominated police an Iraq army units.
These contacts are often threateneing to them. To boot, these people often call on the US army to provide basic services, to act in place of a governmetn they can neither trust or rely on.

So, when discussing how to respond to the question about leaving, we would need to determine first, who is asking and on whose behalf. We would need to determine whether we want to deal with Iraq as a conglomerate of ALL its people, or whether we want to deal with a govenrment which represents only some of the people.

It's a fine kettle of fish we've got ourselves into. We have to discuss the complexities of leaving before fully coming to terms with why we arrived there in the first place or what our role there should be, now or in the future.

Though it cost Bush's father re-election in 1992, we didn't remove Hussein even though it was befitting (as it was this decade — and critics continue to forget that Hussein was not going to live and be in power in Iraq forever; he was mortal like the rest of us) and “finish the job” in the early 1990s because we feared the very power vacuum and invitation to Iranian aggression that we have come to see. Complicating this is the set of advances terrorists have made in the last 10-15 (now) years. Unfortunately, now we're stuck. Only the foolish (the really rabid anti-war types) want a 100% evacuation immediately. Some military presence that will remain in Iraq after we've ended the occupation — a presence in theory little different than our continued existence in western Europe, and more importantly in South Korea and even on Okinawa for now — as well as the obvious case of Djibouti, is demanded by the logic of the situation there and the history of that region. Obviously we cannot and should never enable terrorists (or especially poorly-behaving Iranian proxies if you wish to strain to make a distinction) to have control over oil supplies on which we rely, and to use the revenue from them to pay for even more terrorism than nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia sponsor now.

Leave completely? I doubt it. The case is strong for maintaining a military force in Iraq, stronger than our presence currently in Djibouti (next to Somalia, where we just conducted one or more air strikes against terrorists).

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5482.htm

I agree. On the matter of leaving when asked, there is (or should be) no difference.

One suspects that it has been seen (by various elected governments of these nations) to be in the best interest of Japan, Germany, and Korea NOT to ask the US to remove its military forces for all these many decades.

Is it really a stretch to think that maybe the government of Iraq might find similar reasons to invite us to stay for a while as well?

If they did so, would President Hillary or President Obama say “yes”, or just laugh at them and redouble the speed of their promised withdrawal?

Who can know . . .

But to put this off to BDS, I think, misses the boat. I think this question goes to a larger view of how committed the US is to its own interests over those of host countries.

For instance: If the Japanese said, tomorrow, that it would like us to remove ourselves from Okinawa, would we?

Or if the Germans decided that WWII is far enough in the past, and they don't want to serve as a buffer anymore against Russia, would we leave if they asked?

How about South Korea? Would the US interest in NK's activities trump a SK request to leave?

If the answers to those are different from the Iraq question, why would that be? Because I'm not sure, actually, that there's any difference at all…

While no one can say what would (will?) happen if (when?) the Iraqi government asks the US to leave, the question has been asked:

” . . . asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: “Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet.”

That was in 2005. The White House has more than once reiterated this position. One might think that would put the issue to bed.

It would seem to me that the public assurance of the President of the United States would be a bit difficult to just walk away from. Alas, too many on the left are so afflicted with BDS that they just “know better!”

It seems like it should be nice to be clairvoyant, though on second thought, these 'gifted' (afflicted?) folks don't seem to be very happy in their visions.

No, of course he wouldn't.

al-Maliki told Bush he wanted Blackwater out of Iraq. How did that work out?

And/or if elected, would John McCain agree a year from now, if asked?

No, of course he wouldn't.