Here's the answer to "cut and run." Here's the way to bring down the whole Cheney/Rove/Bush imperial presidency with pure, uncorrupted truth.
"Cut and run" implies that we Americans have made a commitment to the Iraqi people to help them form a unified, democratic government. The idea is that it's a moral failing to walk, or run, away from a solemn commitment, in keeping with the idea that the fear-baiters now in control of the US government are somehow more moral than those of us who want to end this war and get out of Iraq.
The following is the actual, true history of Cheney's war in Iraq.
I certainly subscribe to the principle that once a commitment is made one should follow through. That's what builds trust, the essential bonds that hold any society together. It's not just a traditional American frontier value, it's universal. When trust breaks down, whole societies break down. If we have become used to blowing each other off we have a problem.
The US invasion and occupation of Iraq did not result from a simple commitment to improve the lives of Iraqis. The circumstances in this case are strange almost beyond belief. If we look at exactly who made what commitment to whom, we find a tangled web of deceit and subterfuge. To simplify a bit for clarity, the core conversation that launched this war and in which commitments were made, were between Dick Cheney and Ahmed Chalabi. Of course each man had an entourage of associates, but Cheney represented the United States and Chalabi represented Iraq.
Cheney's reasons for leading the drive for war may forever remain known only to him, but the general outlines can be extrapolated from his and his associates' public statements. The goals of the "Neocon" group is well known, and their Project for a New American Century spells out those goals. Cheney was a key player in the thinking of these groups. I'm certainly not a scholar of Neocon thinking, but the phrase "projecting American power in the mideast" is a prominent goal. The logic is fairly simple. The world's largest oil reserves are located in the mideast. The US needs unfettered access to that oil to maintain its military and economic dominance, or hegemony, over every other country, for at least another century. Establishing permanent US military bases in a friendly, or submissive, country in the mideast that is rich with oil, would satisfy that need, and would help quell any aspirations by any nation in the mideast to become a military or economic rival to the US. Bingo! We have the New American Century. Any literate person anywhere in the world, with an interest in politics, has ready access to the thinking behind the Neocon aspirations for another century of world domination, especially in the mideast, and especially since 2000 when the Bush administration began appointing advocates of the New American Century to powerful positions in American government. Most Americans, however, remained blissfully unaware of our leaders' real political philosophies and goals.
Though Ahmed Chalabi surely knew the Neocon plans for Iraq, he probably never argued with the Vice President. He was paid well and was given such high respect that even sat almost directly behind Laura Bush during the 2003 State of the Union address. His motives are a bit harder to find any record of, but a bit of Sherlock Holmesian logical deduction can clear up the general outlines. Chalabi is a Shiite. His organization, the Iraqi National Congress, has ties to Iranian intelligence, and Chalabi was briefly accused by the US of spying for Iran shortly after the invasion of 2003.
One can only imagine the conversations between Cheney and Chalabi, but they must have found a lot of common ground. Cheney must have promised Chalabi that he would arrange for the US military to invade Iraq, remove Saddam and help Chalabi set up an Iraqi nationalist government under the benevolent dominance of the US, the supreme economic and military superpower of the world. Chalabi provided the fake intelligence about WMDs, Saddam's ties to Osama and the 9/11 attacks, mobile biological warfare labs, and the promise that he, Chalabi, would include all sects and factions of Iraqi society in a free, democratic society. Cheney promised Chalabi he would break his solemn commitment to honor the US constitution and American values by operating on "the dark side" to shove Chalabi's fake intel into the decision-making process to make sure the US would follow through on Cheney's commitment to Chalabi to invade Iraq to liberate the oppressed Iraqis and allow them to satisfy their thirst for democracy, and his other commitment to his Neocon cohorts to invade Iraq to achieve the New American Century.
Chalabi undoubtedly knew full well what Cheney's primary commitment was all about, but he also knew that as soon as Saddam was removed from power his Shiite and Iranian cohorts would dominate at least 2/3 of "Iraq" and would eventually either oppress the Sunnis and Kurds or establish firm borders between them, or some combination thereof. Chalabi must have known that Sunnis would never allow themselves to be ruled by a Shiite government, and that Shiites, once relieved of the brutal shackles of Sunni oppression would never allow a Sunni government to take power. And he must have known that Kurds would coalesce into their traditional lands and effectively secede from Iraq.
Cheney's real commitment was to his people, the Neocons, and Chalabi's commitment was to his people, the Shiites with traditional ties to Iran. They both fulfilled their commitments, but the reality seems to have benefited Chalabi and the Shiite/Iranians, and has severely damaged US economic, military, diplomatic and social interests. I could elaborate on this point. Apparently Chalabi understood what would happen after the invasion better than Cheney did.
Given that the US, as represented by Dick Cheney, was lied to by Ahmed Chalabi and suckered into serving the geopolitical interests of Shiites and Iran, and given that the information given by Chalabi and Cheney to the US government and the American people was comprised entirely of falsehoods, I can't imagine any part of any of the commitments that led to war that anyone should be bound to honor.
I understand this is a radically different analysis than usually heard, and I welcome amendments, corrections or subtractions to this argument, but I hope this will help you all understand why I must say: US out of Iraq, NOW.