Find me the better descriptor for the foreign policy of the previous administration. Arrogance? Hubris? Mind-numbing stupidity?

No, if we're going to limit ourselves to traditional labels, imperialism is about as close as one can get. And how we end this goat-rope does not change its basic character. Imperialism. Hard to see why the rest of the world didn't just love this.

Yes, not leaving fits the bill.

While I absolutely agree with Tom's and RD’s condemnation of the invasion of Iraq we have to accept the fact that we caused an accident as a result of being DUI at the scene with Bush & Co. bullshit. Thus, we have a responsibility to assist in the repair of the damage we caused. If that means a little slower withdrawal to act responsibly then so be it. I emphasize a little slower not a lot slower.

Taking Tom's 'they still need our guns, it's the right thing to do' argument at face value, he's setting conditions for voter understanding when Maliki asks for a few brigades to ambush the banditos, under some rubric or another.

Turning it around, the invadee might think that the invader agreeing to withdraw our troops, in a more or less bipartisan and pretty specific treaty with an elected gov't, and then not doing so, might smack of reversion to the pre-occupation hubris.

But Ricks vs Sullivan is a distractor. Nor is it about whether the Withdrawal/Temp SOFA has legal heft, is enforceable or discardable. It's about perceptions, in a current situation that (seemingly) allows GOI forces to manage their own community and election security, continuing a positive trend towards full sovereignty and stability.

Perceptions require that to extend US brigade deployments, the GOI see the need for US combat troops in sync with Odierno, and generate a modified SOFA request in a way that is acceptable to both sides- or else can be executed in a way that is deniable. Either way, the fractious GOI has to admit things are still out of control, ask us to kill a mish-mash of enemies and allies in their country. And do so over Iranian objections.

In 2006, Maliki resisted the part of the 2007 counteroffensive aimed to short-stop Shiite victory in Baghdadl. Presuming his Rule of Law coalition survives post-election politicking, he won't want his 'national' army 'balanced' by Sunni-US security deals. He doesn't want Clan Barzani to succeed in effective KRG succession, let alone its absortion of the Kirkuk parrot's beak. Nor does he want the US to continue preventing a Shiite Iraq from standing up combined arms, transport and logistics that sovereignty requires be beyond US control.

So under what scenario will Maliki or his Shiite successor ask for occupation combat forces, an extension that is currently prohibited by mutual political agreement and formal timelines, forces that would likely be used to limit Shiite excercise of power? It's just not likely, until the wheels nearly come off, and judging by 2006, maybe not even then.

That leaves deniability, the stealth option. (See hubris relapse, above.) We would call in-country brigade elements 'trainers' or 'force protection', keep BCT gear sets at our Iraqi bases, and hold contingency strike forces in Kuwait, etc. Some version of that is likely, at a general cost of reducing dedicated training assets and preventing a US force reset that all agree is long overdue. MCC Conway's Marines have done their best to ride away, go after the Pashtun tar baby, so extending combat ops in Iraq will mostly be an Army show.

Hey, people here are not Fox News morons. That is the most backward logic I've read on the issue. We were wrong to invade, yet we must stay to make up. Are people stupid enough to accept that argument? Polls in Iraq say they want us to leave. Polls in the USA want to the USA to leave, which is why we elected Obama. He was the only one to promise a withdrawal, and his election is the major reason why violence has gone down. Once the Iraqis realize Obama lied and U.S. troops will stay forever, expect the resistance to rise again.

So the British were wrong to leave all their colonies because that then made them imperialists?

The American people did not decide to invade Iraq, some spoiled rich kid named George thought it would be fun, so he made up lies about a dire threat of WMDs. I wish the U.S. military would invade some of our cities, like Detroit, and saved those failed states. Yet they'd screw it up so badly we have an insurgency develop.

Evidently, the phrase Sullivan actually used was "neo-imperialism," which is different.

It's different because it can mean just about anything, though I'm not sure I can place what the distinction has to do with this discussion. Basically, Sullivan is not apologizing for anything he said when he supported the invasion in 2003, because he's an interesting moral thinker who gets invited to all the best parties. And Ricks isn't changing his position that the moral, non-imperialist thing to do with Iraq is to keep an army there forever, no matter how much it costs. Because it just is, that's why, and it always will be. So we're left with these two immortals in their eternal struggle, each with his back to the other in his own corner of the room, each holding his breath with hands clapped tight over both ears.

And they say there's nothing instructive in the blogosphere.

However wrong it was for us to invade Iraq there is only so much we can do. At some point Iraqis are going to have to do this on their own. I can see no quicker way to destroy any trust they have in us other than going back on our promise to withdraw according to SOFA. That agreement is between two sovereign nations and we have to respect it. If we don't then the people of Iraq would look at their government as a puppet of US, and how would that help them stand on their own?

If we continue to follow the logic that we have to stay in Iraq until we decide its good enough for us, then we will never leave. As a historical parallel if the French used the same argument after American Revolution, and waited until we have a perfect republic, then they would still be here.

Don't forget whatever we might think, the Iraqis want us out. Any American would feel the same way about an occupying army in America.

So how long should the French Army and Navy stayed in the (former) colonies after 1783? Through Shays' Rebellion? The Whiskey Rebellion? Should they have prevented the semi-coup d'etat that gave the United States its constitution? Helped Arthur St. Clair not lose the Battle of the Wabash?

(Come back to help keep the peace in the Florida recount of 2000?)

When do the Iraqis get to run their own country?