Their blood will be on our hands

The idea that there has been no political progress in Iraq is a complete myth. Iraq has come a long way since the chaos of 2006; the surge has fundamentally contributed to this turn-around. I don't want to paint too rosy of a picture of the situation in Iraq. When I speak of progress, I mean from the precipice of hell. Make no mistake, that's where Iraq was going in 2006.

Prime Minister Maliki's nascent government was on the verge of losing complete control and the country was experiencing ethnic cleansing of horrific levels. Fifteen months ago, President Bush came to a decision to deal with an Iraq at the precipice. Instead of pulling out and allowing the Iraqis to enter a living hell, he chose to strengthen U.S. troop presence there. This increase in troop levels became known as the surge and Gen. David Petraeus was put into the position to implement his counter-terrorism strategy of ensuring security, alienating insurgent groups and finding political conciliation.

It might behoove Americans to take this moment, to reestablish a vision for our reconstruction plans in Iraq, a vision, once filled with idealism of democracy, which has largely been lost for the sake of winning the war. Our goal in Iraq cannot be democracy. Establishing the embryo of democracy can be part of our goal, but that task in the end will be up to the Iraqis. It is impossible to force a democracy on a society: Democracy is about choosing one's leaders and it's impossible to force free choice. Also, democracy will be a task in Iraq long after America's aggressive presence in the region is gone.

Rather, America must focus its goal to establish Iraq as a new pillar of American interests in the region. In the 1970s we had three pillars in the Middle East. These were the Shah's Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel, all close American allies and all hated by Arabs and Persians in the region.

Today, we have the potential of building up two potential new pillars in the Middle East: Iraq and Turkey. Of those two, Iraq has a unique potential as an oil state, a gulf state and an Arab state to be a key ally: our conduit to the Arabian Middle East. This will require a transformation in Iraq, one that has only begun. Since we broke the dysfunctional Iraqi Ba'athist state, we will be a big part of this.

First in importance is security. It is true. There is no military solution to Iraq. However the military must be part of the equation. With our military as partners with the Iraqi Security Forces, some level of security and freedom from groups like Al-Qaeda can be established. Individuals will be less willing to retreat into sectarian and tribal corners as the threat of death decreases.

For security there have been three critical moments of progress. One was when the Sunni-Arabs in the Anbar province, a former Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) safe haven, broke with AQI and allied itself with the United States and Iraqi forces. The other moment was this year when Maliki's government was willing to attack the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr in Basra and all across the country. Earlier in his administration, Maliki was afraid to say anything bad about Sadr, given his influence in Shi'a circles, which is also Maliki's base. A few weeks ago Maliki personally oversaw the clashes in Basra. The operation showed that Maliki was willing to take a stand against this militia that once threatened to tear the country apart along sectarian lines.

Another important development is in Iraq's economy. Iraq's GDP is on track to grow more than 7 percent this year. That is significant as oil revenues start to come into the government. Unemployment, regional distribution and human development need to be worked on, but if Iraq can sustain economic growth, that will mean a lot for the stability of the country. Even bad governments stay in power when the economy is good: look at Iraq in the 1970s when it enjoyed huge windfall profits from oil. The country had true potential then.

Finally, there is grassroots reconciliation. Societal reconciliation is more important than anything on paper. Iraqis in Anbar, Basra, Baghdad and Kirkuk are willing to double down and commit to this government offering a future, rather than these organizations that offer chaos, because we are doubling down and showing that we will not give up on them.

We give up on our allies a lot. It has truly hurt our legitimacy from Cambodia, to Iraq to Somalia, our word for decades has proven to mean nothing. We abandoned our Cambodian allies after Vietnam, allowing the Khmer Rouge to commit the violent autogenocide in that country. After the Persian Gulf War we called for the Shi'a Arabs and Kurds to overthrow Saddam Hussein; they came very close, taking almost every province but Baghdad, but then we told Hussein that it would be fine for them to use helicopters: the Ba'ath party put out that fire quickly. In Somalia with our peacekeeping troops there, once the peace turned violent on us, we ran.

How can Taiwan, India or Japan trust us to deter China, or can the eastern European nations we're courting expect American resolve to be enough to stand firm against Russia?

If we are to leave Iraq now and allow it to fall much farther into chaos and genocide, this country of mothers and daughters, fathers and sons will be left to slaughter. That blood will be on our hands, because we were unwilling to fix what we have broken. And also, that memory will stick with people across the globe: Never trust the Americans again.