"The objective is to get Iraq strong enough so it can defend our production of it's oilfields. The flypaper thing is just PR spin. Unless the majority of Iraqis feel they have a stake in the future of their country, continued US military presence there is effectively as a crypto-colonizer. Another petrol (banana) republic, yay US."

And if "the majority of Iraqis feel they have a stake in the future of their country" then all you say is bullshit. And since they do have a stake in their future, oil production will be a critical export, but Iraq will not be a banana republic, it will generate much more revenue from other sources- it's water is far more valuable to Iraq than it's oil, tourism could bring in far more revenue than oil. A prosperous Iraq will cause Saudi Arabia to be less oil dependant. Instead dragging down the Middle East, Iraq could cause the whole area to flourish.
Instead decaying into madness, the middle east will become a region of high growth.
In the near term, Iraqi oil production isn't that significant, Saudi Arabia dwarfs Iraq's production. Iran far exceeds it. The United Arab Emirates and Venezuela exceeds it. Chart:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3atab.html

"Cut-and-run is a term crafted specifically to make consideration of the act loathsome. The shit will hit the fan after the pull out. Whether it's after 5 years of Alawi-as-our-bastard rule or immediately, what is the long term difference? "

Alawi probably won't get elected in Jan. Alawi has about as much chance of being elected as Kerry does.
I suppose if Alawi is not elected you are going to say it's a US failure? After all you will be required to drop this silly idea of "Alawi-as-our-bastard rule" or will simply decide it's another "PR spin thing" or do you conspiracies that can be made to fit this?