A rather interesting proposal from Barry in TheWar forum:

I’m always sad to see the “We broke it, we fix (or own) it” rationale for our continuing presence in Iraq. A better analogy would be “We broke it, so let’s stomp it into unrecognizable shards”.

I’d like to offer an alternative. We’re so insistent on the election process in Iraq, so let them hold a simple one. “US in or out?”. If the Iraqis want us out, we hit the bricks. If they want us to stay, they present a plan to ensure the security of Iraq as a nation. This plan includes a timetable that must be adhered to. We’ll stay as long as they are making progress, and leave if they aren’t.

Apparently we haven’t learned anything from our debacle in Vietnam. If a “nation” won’t defend itself, we or any other outside power cannot defend it.

Simple and to the point. It pretty much undermines any credibility the “we have to stay because we’re needed” crowd might still have (I also refer to them as the “we broke it we own it” crowd).

If the Iraqis want us we’ll stay, if they don’t we’ll leave. If we really care about what the Iraqis want that’s the least we can do.