i just posted this in another thread but wanted to support your call for immediate withdrawal so i'm reposting it here as well ...
the arguments made against immediate withdrawal are flawed ...
first, take a read on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...it cites a study done by the Center for Strategic International Studies that concluded that as little as 4% of the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq are foreign fighters ... most of those fighting against the US occupation and the imposition of a democratically empowered tyranny of the Shia majority are native Iraqis ... the point is that those fighting are not international terrorists who want to provide oil and funding to al Qaeda and other global terrorist organizations ... the point is that the entire premise of the argument you presented against immediate withdrawal is based on a myth ...
given the miniscule composition of foreign fighters in Iraq, what exactly would Clark's call for regional negotiations accomplish while American occupying forces remain in Iraq ... you're presenting an argument to sit down with Syria and Iran and others to have them intervene in an internal political struggle inside Iraq?? what would be the objective of those negotiations? it seems there could only be two possible objectives ...
first, you could ask these countries (or pressure them) to shut-off the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq ... one of the articles in the thread i referenced concluded that Syria does not have the capability to do this ... and again, foreign fighters in Iraq may represent as little as 4% of those fighting ... this approach is a drop in the bucket at best and probably not workable anyway ...
or second, you're talking about some kind of regional peacekeeping force to suppress the insurgency ... Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan and other countries from the region could send troops into Iraq to suppress the Sunni insurgency ... one, it seems inconceivable they would agree to this and two, the Sunnis are fighting for their survival ... why is forcing them to submit to the will of the Shia majority a desirable objective?
so again, what would be the objective of regional negotiations while the US remains in occupation?
another major point, perhaps the most devastating of all, is the reality that the world's most potent fighting force has been totally unable, after two and half years, to quell the violence inside Iraq ... regardless of what mechanisms for peace and stability you advocate, the bottom line is that continued US occupation will not achieve anything ... it doesn't matter what negotiating process you initiate at this point; the occupation itself is the major cause of the violence ...
civil war and post-withdrawal consequences are very real concerns ... but all the US occupation is doing is blocking a road to the inevitable while Iraq remains a cauldron of suffering ... while the US continues its occupation, Iraq is fighting both internal and external enemies not to mention the devastating costs in terms of people, dollars and international prestige to the US ...
the US needs to get the hell out of Iraq either immediately or within a very short timeframe, say less than three months ... at that point, a massive infusion of humanitarian assistance coupled with a regional negotiating process to support that assistance makes sense ... as long as US troops are fighting inside Iraq against those fighting for their own liberation, nothing will change ...
and finally, keep in mind that the US is in Iraq for imperialistic reasons ... bush and his friends are after oil and regional control ... they are not seeking peace, stability and democracy ... they are seeking oil, power and a puppet government ... calling for anything beyond immediate or near-term withdrawal will do nothing but further enable their agenda ...