One of the many reasons I'm not a fan of Bush is that he continually allows his opponents to re-define his own objectives.
How many times has the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op been thrown back in his face? And yet, what was the mission that was accomplished? Deposing Saddam Hussein. That was the mission. That was precisely what the war was about - to remove a dictator in a critical part of the world that was an open enemy of the United States. Period.
But now, "success" is being measured as whether we can turn Iraq into some idealized democracy like...um...Germany or Japan or maybe South Korea? It's worth noting that we still have troops in those countries. We had more troops in Germany 20 years after the end of World War II than we have in Iraq today.
The problem is, there is no way that Iraq will be a "success" by the definitions being generated by Bush's opponents. If utter placity and a compliant government are the measurments of success, then we lost World War II.
So what should we do in Iraq?
1) AFTER the election we should set up a time table for Iraqi responsibility. This time table would not be connected to US withdrawal (Because I don't expect the US to leave Iraq in the next 40 years). But the time table would indicate that certain domestic security responsibilities would be turned over at that time. The time table would be roughly 18 months.
2) Once the time table was over, the US would start to draw down forces. However, a significant contingent (a couple of divisions) would remain in Iraq but well away from urban areas (preferably in in areas controlled by the Kurds). This troop level would probably be around 35,000 to 50,000 troops in total that would be permanently based there to provide support and as an insurance policy to prevent any terrorist group from being able to set up shop in Iraq.
3) We would make clear what US national interests are. Namely, a peaceful Democratic Iraq is something we'd hope for but is not required. If the Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other, that's really none of our concern. If Iraq is in a state of quasi-civil war, that is, again, really not our concern as long as we have enough force in place to prevent any terrorist groups from setting up a permanent base of operations (ala the training camps that once existed in Afghanistan as well as a sanctuary for terrorist leaders).
By defining these 3 things, it would also send a clear message to other nations in the region and Europe. Those countries, not the United States, suffer if Iraq is in a civil war. Very little of our oil comes from Iraq (contrary to the "no blood for OIILLL" crowd). We don't need a stable Iraq. We want a stable Iraq. Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have a vested interest in a stable Iraq, if they want to help out, they are certainly welcome to. But as long as we are defining success based on the stability of Iraq, they have no incentive to help us. That needs to be changed.
It's worth noting that toppling Saddam's regime was done with fewer than 500 combat deaths. The thousands of American casualties in Iraq since then have been in the name of this new, previously unannounced "mission" of creating a stable and democratic Iraq.