What we must "get out" of Iraq

It is outrageous what the anti-war movement, most especially supposedly "responsible" politicians, are proposing that the US do about Iraq. The visceral hatred of George Bush and everything he does that drives the Democrats is now being abetted by Republicans who are running scared for their political lives (apparently, their political survival is more important to them than the country's interests and its honor).

Stipulations: 1) The Neo-cons who drove the war were incredibly naive, uninformed and incompetent. The war was NOT for Halliburton or "oil" or Israel or any of the other bugaboos of the Left; it was fought to "liberate" people who are incapable of understanding the meaning of liberty or to exercise liberty responsibly (AKA Muslims); 2) The Administration fought the war stupidly and incompetently.

All that said, the US has invested a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq and it would be unconscionable to leave there in defeat and without reward. THAT is what any withdrawal or "re-deployment " would be, no matter how the war opponents may wish to characterize it. As a minimum, our war aims must be:
1. We must not be defeated or even be perceived to be defeated. We can only leave when we SAY we want to leave after completion of our mission, whatever we choose to define the mission to be. The mission must include the installation of an unambiguously friendly regime in the country; at least as friendly as our other Arab "friends" in the region.

2. "Leaving" must include our ability to retain military bases and troops in Iraq to fight any local insurgency we choose to fight and, MOST important, to offer a visible threat to our state enemies in the region, Syria and Iran. They must be able to see that we are within easy striking distance of their territory, with a credible force and with full freedom of action.