Hi Jack!
I agree with you on a great deal here.
Nancy Pelosi, it appears, doesn't get a great many things (the importance of ethics, or the importance of putting someone who has some actual knowledge in as chair of the Intel committee), so it is sadly no surprise that she seems equally clueless on Iraq.
The simple fact is that we are there, and if we cut and run, Iraq will be left with areas that are best described as Afghanistan writ large: Ideal grounds for terrorists. Even more importantly, we will have proven ourselvs spineless, without resolve, and that is the twin of weakness. We will truly become the "paper tiger" of the international stage.
So, common sense alone dictates that we cannot cut and run.
However, the present policy seems, clearly, to be not working. I'm disgusted with BOTH parties regarding Iraq.
The Baker report does ID some of the major problems, especially the dynamics driving the "insurgency", which is almost entirely Sunni (I said the same thing over two years ago, but I digress...). The big problem is that IMHO the Baker report takes the right data and draws the wrong conclusions. Their answer to the Sunni issue? Basically, more of the same. They also stress that the US must redouble its efforts to prevent a civil war. They never bother with the question of "why?"
The Sunnis have been the heart of the "insurgency", and it has widespread public support amongst them. They have tried hard to provoke a civil war. They comprise about 10% of the Iraqi population, with the rest being mainly Shia and Kurds, both of whom were victims of genocide at the hands of Saddam's Sunni regime. The fact that the Sunnis seek civil war is patently nuts, but none the less true.
My opinion? When something isn't working, try something else: Let the Sunni and the Shia have their civil war. We are the only thing stopping it, so we could begin it be merely withdrawing forces from certain regions of Iraq, and no longer stopping Shia forces from heading for Sunni areas. From our strategic point of view it would be very beneficial: It would eliminate the Sunni threat, as well as both weaken and satiate the Shia anger (Shias have been the primary targets of the violence so far) and might well trigger an "Islamic civil war" between the Sunni and Shia segments of Islam (as the Sunni states have indicated that they wouldn't stand by while their fellow Sunni are destroyed) throughout the middle east (also beneficial for us, if played correctly).
The problem I have with US policy in general is that it is so undynamic, and slow to take advantage of opertunities. One of the basics of war is that if things aren't going your way, and you have the opportunity to change the dynamics of the situation, you do so. We have, to our peril, ignored this for too long.
Is this bloodthirsty? Indeed. However, so are our enemies, and I've always opposed the "take the high road" approach to war, for I feel that in war, there is one, and only one, goal: winning. Also, taking the high road gives your enemies on the low road a perfect vantage point from which to shoot you in the ass.