Civil wars such as those gripping Iraq come to a resolution only through victory of one side (unlikely here, given the parity of forces) or when each side is exhausted enough from fighting that negotiated settlement becomes more attractive. Our presence in Iraq isn't going to achieve either of those triggers (unless we foolishly choose to align with one side in service of the others' annihilation), just prolong the process.

In a sense, our presence has made the costs of continued fighting seem manageable. There is, though, an outside chance that our departure will clarify the costs for the warring parties and cause them to reconsider their options. If that doesn't persuade the combatants, though, our continued presence won't either.

It will mean that they have crossed the rubicon, and are heading down a destructive path that we cannot divert.

This James Fearon piece makes a compelling case for much of the above if you haven't seen it already.

I think pretty much no matter what the US does carnage will occur, and therefore my objective is to minimize US costs as there are very, very, few side benefits in my mind of keeping 150,000 US troops in Iraq that have minimal probability of achieving any significant strategic objectives.

What is the human capital profile for that 100,000

Honestly, I haven't a clue.

I think that the very high skilled population has already been decimated by a combination of random death, targeted assaination and emigration.

Could well be.

Offering visas and a plausible path out to 80,000 cooks and laborers will have minimal impact on any systemic rebuilding attempt but could fulfill whatever moral calculas and culpability one may believe that the US has towards them.

I agree that we owe it to them. I'm not sure that'll make up for the carnage that follows what seems to be our inevitable exodus, though.

What is the human capital profile for that 100,000 --- how many are guns for hire, low skilled day laborers (cooks, washers, truck drivers etc), medium skilled (translators) and very high skilled (civil engineers, doctors, managers).

I think that the very high skilled population has already been decimated by a combination of random death, targeted assaination and emigration. Offering visas and a plausible path out to 80,000 cooks and laborers will have minimal impact on any systemic rebuilding attempt but could fulfill whatever moral calculas and culpability one may believe that the US has towards them.

What's not accurate?

I understand we ... deposed a dangerous dictator.

I don't think this is particularly accurate.

Charles: We opened up the Pandora's box that turned Iraq into a killing field. To the extent that we did so promising to make a better life for the Iraqis, instill democracy, and so forth, what ensued is our responsibility.

... given our role in creating the mess.

Did we really create the mess? I thought it it was all the Baathist insurgents, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda wannabees, Iran, and many others who were murdering people left and right to sow discord and choas that are at fault. Is it the mere presence of Americans, or the patrolling of dangerous Iraqi streets, or time spent building schools, or what exactly that lays the cuplability at our feet?

I understand we invaded Iraq and deposed a dangerous dictator. Since very few people really want to go back to the salad days of Saddam Hussein, presumably any blame that attaches to us comes after Saddam was deposed. It would have been heinous to turn and walk away immediately, though the result might well have been what we will face if the anti-war crowd gets its wish and we abandon Iraq now as well. As Senator Obama has said, stopping a genocide there is not a reason to stay, so maybe we should have left immediately after Saddam was deposed.

With hindsight, or perhaps General Shinseki's foresight, maybe we should have had more troops there after the three week war was over. Or maybe more of the civilized world should have helped, and that would have made a tremendous difference, not only in sheer numbers, but also on the vaunted political and diplomatic fronts. If we are going to so easily and generously laddle blame, what share of the blame should be apportioned to the cheap political sniping predicated more on anti-Americanism that pacifism from the sidelines by our friends both at home and abroad?

Of course, we would have been blamed for all the bad things that happened there either way (remember our culpability for killing 500,00 Iraqi children with sanctions?), so maybe we just have to accept that everything is our fault. But even having accepted this blame, should we not still adhere to our best interests moving forward and the best interests of the people whom we are alleged to have wronged? The perfect remains the enemy of the good. Are we going to try and make things better or are we going to quit because we can't make them perfect.

I apologize for drifting somewhat afield, but sometimes it is necessary to challenge what everybody just knows to be true. As to your original post, we should be generous in allowing Iraqi's to emigrate. Of course, I believe that is true for more than just Iraqi's.

1) But that raises another question: does sponsoring an exodus of skilled people from Iraq merely compound our error? How can Iraq rebuild itself without these people?

The brain drain of the professional middle class has been ongoing and severe for the past couple of years already. These are the individuals who had resources to flee to Jordan or Syria and reasonably employable skills once they got there. They are also the key targets in a system disruption campaign as they are the mobile human capital that could allow for systemic reconstruction. They are targets no matter what and they know it. And all of this has occurred with between 120,000 and 160,000 US troops in country.

2) How nationalized are the security forces v. expressions of local and sectarian group loyalties that happen to be drawing a paycheck signed by the same guy? Most of the reporting on the Iraqi Army shows it is locally recruited for half the divisions, and very sectarian in its focus. The same applies for the police forces. The national government forces are better dressed militias.