I think the technical logical term is "non sequitur," actually.

Could someone please tell me what would change for Iraq and what would change for America if we left now? And not just talking points, explain to me exactly what is likely to happen, and why it is likely to happen if we leave but not if we stay.

What you're asking for would run to at least 60+ typewritten pages, but here are a few talking points, with respect to which 60+ pages could easily be written to support:

Al-Qaida will claim, and will be seen by much of the world to have won, the greatest strategic victory over the United States in history, with commensurate effects on its influence, fund-raising, and recruiting in dozens of countries, including nominal American allies (Egypt, the Gulf principalities, Indonesia, Jordan). Other terrorist organizations (e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah) will likewise take heart. Basically every terrorist or terrorist wannabe for the rest of the 21st Century will be absolutely assured that the U.S. has about a five-year attention span, and that the strategy pioneered by the North Vietnamese and then perfected by al-Qaida will let a determined adversary who can avoid annihilation eventually whip the world's only "superpower."

Every ally of the United States, large and small, old and new, will have grave cause to wonder about our commitment to keep our commitments. Some of them will hedge their bets. Pakistan, for example, would be almost certain to create further distance from the U.S., and radical Islamic elements within it would be encouraged and strengthened. That would in turn affect our on-going efforts in next-door Afghanistan. The "stans"-countries from the former Soviet Union, who have been (fairly quietly) supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, will also cool their relations with us, and radical elements inside them will be encouraged, too.

Best-case scenario for us, Iraq itself will probably bust up into at least three separate states — Kurds in the North, Sunni in the center, Shi'ites in the South. The Sunni middle will become even more violent that it is now in terms of sectarian conflict; it's likely to become the new safe haven for al-Qaida that Afghanistan was under the Taliban; and it's likely to be at more or less perpetual war with the Kurds to the North and Shi'ites in the South because they'd be left sitting on top of Iraq's oil reserves. The Shi'ite southern state would become in everything but outward form a total proxy for Iran. It's unclear whether Turkey, NATO membership notwithstanding, would permit the existence of an independent Kurdish state in the North because of its concerns about its own Kurdish minority rebelling. (Turkey will also be another ally whose faith in the U.S. will take a huge hit when we bail.)

Pretty much everyone currently in Iraq who's invested with us in the notion of a strong secular state in which Shia and Sunnis live side-by-side will bail out along with us, since they'll bear the brand of "collaborators." Accordingly, there will be tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of deaths through ethnic cleansing, and probably millions of refugees — a humanitarian disaster that will make anything that happened in the Balkins or Africa lately look like patty-cake.

Syria will gain a sudden reprieve, and its Ba'athist government will undoubtedly become more repressive both internally and in dominating Lebanon.

The likelihood of further war between Israel and, literally, everyone else in the region, individually and/or collectively, will increase many times over. And our ability to intercede with the Israelis — e.g., to deter them from trying to take out the growing Iranian nuclear threat, or to avoid repressive measures in dealing with the Palestinian issues, will be significantly degraded. As for a Palestinian state anytime in the next decade or two, forget it — unless Israel is destroyed first.

Energy prices will probably double, or triple, and stay there as long as there's conflict in what's now Iraq — which would likely be a period measured in decades. (World trade in general will take a hit.) Russia, though, will not be unhappy, since its ability to dominate its former client-states through energy cut-offs and other means will be enhanced.

From state sanctuaries either in the former Iraq, or in states (like Syria, or maybe a newly defiant Libya) that have kept their heads down (comparatively) since 9/11 and the toppling of the Taliban, al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations can regroup, recapitalize, refit, re-arm, and retrain cadres of the sort needed to launch multiple operations against Western civilization targets around the world, certainly including attacks on U.S. soil.

The American military will, by and large, feel betrayed — again — by a failure of will on the home front. Vietnam syndrome all over again.

China — already our only rival for "super-power" status, and tight as a tick with Iran — will shed no tears. As our status in the world declines, theirs rises.

But Iran is the big winner in any scenario in which we abruptly pull out of Iraq — not only because it establishes a puppet state in southern Iraq (gaining control of those oil fields), but because it is instantaneously relieved of the pressure of having large, combat-ready American forces based next-door in at least one of its neighbors (Iraq) and perhaps two (Afghanistan). Any realistic hope of deterring Iran's nuclear ambitions, or of engaging in combat operations short of war to take out their nuclear facilities, pretty much evaporates. The odds of some terrorist organization getting a nuke, or at least the materials for a dirty bomb, will skyrocket.

None of these things is certain. All of them are entirely plausible, and at least some of them are far more likely than not.

Pretty significant consequences for running from a war that so far, and in total, has cost us fewer U.S. deaths than occurred during the three-day Battle of Gettysburg just on the Union side, or less than half as many who died taking a eight-square-mile Iwo Jima in World World II.

Happy Memorial Day.

Does the average reader understand the consequences of leaving now?

I'll admit it, I don't. Could someone please tell me what would change for Iraq and what would change for America if we left now? And not just talking points, explain to me exactly what is likely to happen, and why it is likely to happen if we leave but not if we stay.

Thanks in advance for all the thought provoking, informed and rational explanations I am sure to receive.

if we withdraw from Iraq before it's more stable than it is now, we are completely without a strategy in the War on Terror.

I'm a little confused on what you mean by this. Is this a cause/effect relationship, or a test/proof relationship?

Oh, obviously, but I was complimenting you more on your explanation of the way our staggered electoral system (different offices elected at different points in time for different term lengths) is reflected politically. Very well done.

Questions like-- Would you vote to end the war?-- can be viewed in several ways. Even the most rabid war hawk would answer that YES! It all depends on the conditions for ending it.
--Should we withdraw now?--leaves the answer up in the air too. Is there a proper context for this question? Does the average reader understand the consequences of leaving now?

So I take neither midterm elections nor polls of the people very seriously at this juncture.

What I do take seriously are the methods now being used in Iraq, the still very limited strength of the forces we have there, and the commitments we have made to the Iraqi people and the government. Also, I watch carefully for reports that we are succeeding in turning more and more Iraqi to our side, of which there are a few more tribes now.

At the beginning of this war, I suggested that the American people are not disposed to support long foreign wars where victory is a drawn out process, and continuing casualties are inevitable, unless they perceive a threat that actually scares them.

No one seems especially scared of Iraqi in Iraq here in the USA, and AQ is a ephemeral quantity, remembered mostly for 9/11, which seems to be receding into the fog of the past. Why, we have had no further attacks, so lets go on sleepwalking, playing and get out of the mess pronto!

What a grave oversimplification.

the only thing I do not understand is how obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people like James Joyner can continue to support the republican party the way they do.

Most of my life I was apolitical, thinking it did not matter much. But over the past decade I have become extremely anti-republican -- but this does not mean that I am pro-democratic -- because of the undemocratic and unamerican nature of those who now control the republican party.

Being just a tad hyperbolic here aren't we?

I congratulate you James Joyner.

What we now need to do is move the debate away from support or opposition to the war to one of how do we minimize and overcome the massive damage this incompetent administration is leaving us with.

And maybe more important how do we keep our domestic political system from being rent asunder by those like the ones who accuse Bacevich of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Such ignorant ideologues is what got us in this mess to start with and how do we prevent them from making the situation worse?l

I've been pretty consistent, I think, in the view that one can simultaneously speak out against the war and be a loyal American.

For which you should receive credit.

However, this makes you a rarity among pundits right of center.

I've been pretty consistent, I think, in the view that one can simultaneously speak out against the war and be a loyal American.