Endgame: American Options in Iraq

From Stratfor.com here is Dr. George Friedman options in Iraq:

The new U.S. mission, therefore, must be to block Iran in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The United States cannot impose a government on Iraq; the fate of Iraq's heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by the United States. But the United States remains an outstanding military force, particularly against conventional forces. It is not very good at counterinsurgency and never has been. The threat to the Arabian Peninsula from Iran would be primarily a conventional threat -- supplemented possibly by instability among Shia on the peninsula.

The mission would be to position forces in such a way that Iran could not think of moving south into Saudi Arabia. There are a number of ways to achieve this. The United States could base a major force in Kuwait, threatening the flanks of any Iranian force moving south. Alternatively, it could create a series of bases in Iraq, in the largely uninhabited regions south and west of the Euphrates. With air power and cruise missiles, coupled with a force about the size of the U.S. force in South Korea, the United States could pose a devastating threat to any Iranian adventure to the south. Iran would be the dominant power in Baghdad, but the Arabian Peninsula would be protected.

This goal could be achieved through a phased withdrawal from Iraq, along with a rapid withdrawal from the populated areas and an immediate cessation of aggressive operations against jihadists and militia. It would concede what the NIE says is unattainable without conceding to Iran the role of regional hegemony. It would reduce forces in Iraq rapidly, while giving the remaining forces a mission they were designed to fight -- conventional war. And it would rapidly reduce the number of casualties. Most important, it would allow the United States to rebuild its reserves of strategic forces in the event of threats elsewhere in the world.

Dr. Friedman also states the three other options (staying the course, cutting-and-running, and staged withdrawal) won't work in the long run. Staying the course he says pursues an attainable goal of Iraq creating an effective coalition government. Cutting-and-running just "opens the door for possible Iranian hegemony -- and lays a large part of the world's oil reserves at Iran's feet." Finally, a staged withdrawal would put our troops in Iraq at a disadvantage. Our troops numbers would decrease while the enemy's troops number would increase. We would be outnumbered--a dangerous situation that a soldier does not want to experience and should at all possible not to be put in.

The doctor's plan I think is reasonable. We cannot let Iran take over Iraq and make it into another terrorist training camp. Basically the author is saying we cannot completely leave Iraq. So, how long would US troops be in Iraq even if they are in the uninhabited regions? Probably a long time or until Iran is not a threat anymore. Some political analyst say President Bush will do some action against Iran before he leaves office if they become a nuclear power.