You get out of Iraq the same way you got in - ships and planes. Want some perspective? Talk with Robert McNamara - speaking of utter hubristic failure.

Given your altruistic viewpoint, Annie, I envision you serving in the Peace Corps teaching Iraqi women creative writing. Right? As soon as all of those pesky IEDs have been unearthed.

Think of all the gawd-awful Iraq War movies you’re going to be reviewing for the next 20 years. Sheesh!

If that’s not bad enough, doesn’t the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis want us to stop raping their country and leave mean anything to you?

There’s also the fact that our presence is illegal under the Iraqi “Constitution.” Not that it matters anymore:

Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew U.N. Mandate for Occupation

On Tuesday, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council extending the mandate that provides legal cover for foreign troops to operate in Iraq for another year.

The move violated both the Iraqi constitution and a law passed earlier this year by the Iraqi parliament -- the only body directly elected by all those purple-finger-waving Iraqis in 2005 -- and it defied the will of around 80 percent of the Iraqi population.

Earlier in the week, a group representing a majority of lawmakers in Iraq's parliament -- a group made up of Sunni, Shiite and secular leaders -- sent a letter to the Security Council, a rough translation of which reads: "We reject in the strongest possible terms the unconditional renewal of the mandate and ask for clear mechanisms to obligate all foreign troops to completely withdrawal from Iraq according to an announced timetable."

http://www.alternet.org/story/71144/

Without the full weight of Congressional approval behind it, it's no more binding the to next administration as any similar agreements made by previous ones.

It may be a bad move to reneg on such an agreement from a diplomatic or public relations standpoint, but I seriously doubt even the GOP minority will be able to rationalize it as illegal.

When all else fails with your product, re-brand it!

Under international law the president of the USA can bind the USA to an international agreement.

There are numerous agreements made this way (I believe they are called executive agreements or something) that are not treaties and did not get Senate approval. So, they are part of our instiuttional culture too.

But it is also true that any nation pretty much at any time can renounce a treaty. So, even a treaty is not "binding" in that sense.

For example, if you are an honorable Republican who truly believes torture is necessary to fight terror, you would say this:

"
Torture is now necessary. But we are part of the Geneva Convention which outlaws it. SO we are going to to have the USA withdraw from the Geneva convention so that we legally can go ahead and torture now. ANn to our troops: Sorry -- you are now no longer protected against torture and you have no Geneva Convention rights when you are captured. Good luck!"

A lying sack of shit Republican would say this: "Torture is necessary. But we don't 'torture.' So we don't have to renounce the Geneva Convention. And BTW, you can't prosecute me, ha-ha, because we never admitted to torture, ha ha!"

It was pretty clear that "we" were in it for the long term pretty early on. If you didn't see the signs before we launched this totally unjustified, illegal, murderous war -- then you should have noticed by at least Year Two when reports surfaced that the US was building pretty permanent-looking bases all over Iraq.

Note One: All of the justifications for the war are false.

Note Two: Almost nobody has publically stated the most likely reasons that the US Gummint decided to take Iraq.

Note Three: Saying you support this "war" now (or at any time) implies that you support unjustified murder of innocents (although perhaps you didn't realize it at the time. You will be forgiven). Yes, Saddam was a fucker. But also yes, we helped him into power. Now, yes, we've opened a tinder box that cannot be closed. Oops.

Iraq is not a "democracy". It never will be. Ever.

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year

Oh, and Iraqis don't like Al Quakaduck either ... Check the worldpublicopinion . org site for more of that.

Obama? Who knows. I'm willing to bet that his colors will "run" when he starts getting National Intelligence Briefings.

The major problem is Bush's flawed strategy of using the military as the primary force to reconstruction of Iraq. Any candidate who proposes to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq is offering the same mistaken strategy.

Instead, that candidate should immediately assemble a team of diplomatic, economic, and social advisers. These experts, not the military, will most likely solve the Iraq problem. Without this team, a candidate is only mouthing political rhetoric. Without immediate action, the next president will be unprepared, and the status quo will likely continue.

We cannot place the genie back in the bottle. We invaded, and now we're responsible for Iraq. But, continuing with the military first approach will simply lead to the same result. We need CHANGE!

None of the Democrats have shown action for strategic change. They are pandering to the left by vocally supporting withdrawal. But withdrawal alone is foolish and politically unrealistic. When will these candidates take immediate action and stop talking?