Rethinking Iraq

I’m trying to think Iraq through, and a couple of things come to mind:
*I don’t believe that the invasion met all necessary criteria for a just war. Therefore, any decision we make from here on is made in light of an egregious error from the start.
*I believe a unified Iraq is either impossible or not reasonably possible enough to work toward.
*Pandora’s box was opened upon the invasion, opening the door to the current Civil War.
*Whatever alternative leads to a minimized loss of life should be favored from this point forward.

In the event of an American withdrawal from the region, the retardation of Iraq’s Civil War would be removed. I fear an all-out bloodbath, followed by the installation of an anti-West government that ends up worse than the old Saddam regime.

In the event of an American escalation, said retardation will have a quasi-permanent status. Much like the worst of welfare recipients, Iraq will have no incentive to maintain its own security. Our present limbo will continue without significant improvement. Sustainable peace may take a decade or two to implement.

I really have no idea what the right thing to do is.

What this quandary illustrates, though, is the fact that earlier wrong decisions force us into tougher and tougher calls down the road. Precedents are set, wrong doors are opened, favors are owed, money is lost, lives are ended, etc. Had the US government applied a consistent ethic of life toward its decision to invade -- and in fact stayed home – we’d be all the better.