The Iraqi conflict is going to be with us for years if not decades. The country has become the focus of a crisis of Islamic civilization that is closer to its onset than its conclusion.

I don't think Cohen means that the Iraqi conflict is 'going to be with us' in the same sense as the conflict in Cyprus or Kashmir is 'with us' or the conflict in Ireland was 'with us'. He means something different. Specifically:

...the United States must keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The size of this deterrent force is up for debate, but 50,000 soldiers, or 105,000 less than today, is one talked-about figure.

And, why must we keep a deterrent force in Iraq?

I see four core American interests in Iraq that cannot be abandoned. There must be no Afghan-like Al Qaeda takeover of wide areas. There must be no genocide (say a Shiite sweep against Sunnis). There must be no regional conflagration (for example, a Turkish invasion). And there must be no return to the old order (murderous Stalinist dictatorship).

No mention of mineral resources. No mention of air bases, or other military establishments. No mention of protecting Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates from potential Persian expansionism or other types of predation. No mention of Iran at all...or Israel. No. All of the 'core American interests' in Iraq are strictly humanitarian, or vaguely related to anti-terrorism measures. This is totally dishonest. But, let me look at these four core interests, because I'm not a heartless bastard and I agree that we don't want to see any of these four outcomes come to fruition.

1) There must be no Afghan-like Al Qaeda takeover of wide areas.

This is the safe-haven argument. Terrorists are dangerous, but they become more dangerous if they are able to sit in place and recruit, train, and indoctrinate large numbers of fighters. Of course, there is no better training than the real thing...actual combat against American soldiers. It beats the hell out of using the monkey bars and shooting goats with your AK. We can target fixed terrorist training sites in Iraq the same way we did in Afghanistan...with drones and submarine launched tomahawk missiles. Or we can do straight bombing runs. We don't need lots of troops on the ground to prevent the rise of terror training camps. As for the prospect of al-Qaeda controlling large areas of Iraq, we shouldn't be too concerned. The Iraqis are dominated by Shi'ites that are mortal enemies of al-Qeada, Kurds that are no friends of Arab salafists, and secular Ba'athists that have no respect for Saudi-style religion. The Iraqis will prove to be the most lethal killers of al-Qaeda ever devised...once they no longer have a common enemy (the coalition forces). In other words, this is not a major concern.

2.There must be no genocide (say a Shiite sweep against Sunnis).

There are various ways to prevent a genocide against Sunnis in Iraq. One way is to maintain a significant U.S. military force in the country that prevents the Iraqi army, or militias, from razing whole cities and villages or causing wholesale demographic flight. But, that is not the only way. The best way is MONEY. Every tank and soldier we pull out of Iraq frees up money to be spent in more productive ways. Bilateral arrangements between the U.S. and Iraqi government provide leverage. They engage in or tolerate genocide, then they stand to lose money (first) and power (later).

3. There must be no regional conflagration (for example, a Turkish invasion).

This is a tricky one. If there is any ongoing role for US troops in Iraq, it would be in Kurdistan. And it would be to protect Kurds from their Arab, Turkish, and Persian neighbors. On the other hand, Turkey is a far more vital ally than the Kurds. This requires constant diplomacy. It does not necessarily require a military presence, but it doesn't preclude a kind of trip-wire force to prevent the outbreak of widespread combat.

4. There must be no return to the old order (murderous Stalinist dictatorship).

I can understand why this is a worthy goal but, other than embarrassment, I hardly see this as a core American interest. Frankly, we just want stability. If a brutal dictator can take care of items 1 thru 3 on this list for us, I'd count that a minor miracle. We really need to consider likely outcomes here. But, we do not need to maintain troops in Iraq to prevent the rise of a dictator. Iraq has a government, however weak, and we can support that government without having multiple divisions in-country. Considering the problems facing Iraq, having recurring free and fair elections is far down the list of priorities.

So, what are we to make of Cohen's argument?

To ensure this [the prevention of the 4 listed outcomes], the United States must keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The size of this deterrent force is up for debate, but 50,000 soldiers, or 105,000 less than today, is one talked-about figure. The timing of the drawdown will have to be discussed with Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, but it should begin soon after September.

Pulling out a lot of troops is the only way to increase pressure on Maliki to make the political compromises - on distribution of oil revenue, the constitution and de-Baathification - that will give Iraq some long-term chance of cohering. That chance will be increased if, as the United States steps down, the United Nations steps up.

Ah! He finally got around to mentioning oil...but only in the context of national reconciliation. Cohen is either stupid or dishonest. The core U.S. interests in Iraq are not humanitarian. They are only marginally related to anti-terrorism. Our core interests are in maintaining access and control over energy resources in the larger region, and all that entails. Most importantly, that entails keeping our allies safe and happy.

There is certainly some humanitarian component to keeping them safe and happy, but it is a minor piece of the puzzle. It's just as important that we keep the Kurds from making incursions into Turkish sovereign territory as it is that we prevent Arabs or Persians from violating Kurdish territory. It's just as important to our Sunni allies that we prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb as it is that we prevent a genocide. It's more important that Iraq improve its electrical grid, water supply, economy, and basic security than whether or not they have a democracy or a Pakistan-style military government. And, while it is important that al-Qaeda not find Iraq as a safe haven for plotting terror attacks against the West, the Iraqis are fully capable of dealing with this threat on their own.

So, my answer to Cohen is that he has failed to make the case for an ongoing military occupation of Iraq (except perhaps in Kurdistan) on humanitarian grounds. It might appeal to liberal heartstrings, but his argument is simplistic and dishonest. There are far bigger strategic concerns here than humanitarian concerns. And that doesn't even get into the unwholesome motivations (lucre to private contractors and the defense industry).

We should pull our troops from Iraq.