How Important Is Iraq

Iraq is a total mess teetering on civil war. I thought in 2003 that it should have been partitioned. I realize that would require most likely the population transfers of 2 or more million people. It would have been difficult but similiar thing happened in central Europe after WWII. It didn't happen in the Balkans and we saw what happened in the 1990's. Massive numbers of Iraqi's could have been employed in building new homes and upgrading utilities. By now I think Iraq could have been in better shape than it is today. But the US didn't do that. In fact it hasn't done anything right in Iraq. So Iraq may fall into civil war, destabilze the area, threaten oil supplies (global economy), and possibly become even more of a terrorist breeding ground. With 140,000 troops, the US can try to mitigate the civil war and prevent the outflow of violence from disrupting oil production in the rest of the region. At best it is a holding action. Most likely the result will be a continued, incremental increase in violence and instability, exploding if a figure like Sistani or Sadr gets killed.
So do we continue the slow, downward spiral of staying the course or try something else. The establishment democrats have decided to stay the course, while Feingold, with the support of many progressives, proposed a withdrawal date at the end of 2006. Feingold understands you can't just pull out and leave the Iraqi's hanging, but the plan may put a fire under them to get their act together. Will it work, I don't know but it gets everyone seriously thinking about what happens January 1, 2007 and I think that would be a positive.
The establishment democrats like Biden, Clinton, Bayh, Leiberman, and locally Ford support staying the course. They have been put in an akward situation of siding with Bush and make ridiculous statements like "the war was right but the execution was wrong." Staying the course seems not to be politically viable. Bush is getting pummelled and republicans seem to be on the verge of jumping the war ship. But people have talked at length about this. What I want to know is if the war is so important and failure an unacceptable option, what leadership is establishment/DLC democrats willing to show? 140,000 troops are enough to be targets and not much more. Hardly any reconstruction has occured (less electricity, water, and gasoline production than before the war) and the insurgency has grown. So lets talk leadership. The US would have to do a whole lot more with a whole lot more troops and a whole lot more money to accomplish anything. Democratic establishment/DLC Senators, co-sponser a bill to reinstate the draft. A year and a half from now the US would have another 400,000 troops and we could rotate in and extra 250,000 at a time. There has to be 400,000 US troops in Iraq to create stability. Senator Clinton's call to increase the army by 80,000 without a draft is disingenuous. The army can't even meet current recruiting goals, so how are they going to get 80,000 more? Establishment/DLC Democrats in the House, propose a bill to raise taxes to pay for all of this extra defense spending. Right now it costs $1.5 billion a week for military operations in Iraq. With 400,000 it would go up to close to $5 billion a week, plus an increase in the defense departments budget. Doing this would take balls, in fact asking that much of the country when 54% of populace wants to leave tommorrow would probably be political suicide. But by these pro-war democrats statements, Iraq is that important. So sacrifice your political careers for a greater good. If you are not prepared to ask for these sacrifices from the American people and yourself than you don't believe Iraq is truely that important. So for the pro-war democrats, it is time to show what you believe in and how much you are willing to give up to do what is right.