One big reason Bush won the last election, and why he can maintain any support for the Iraq War, is his ability to misdescribe the war as an us-versus-some-enemy-we-shouldn't-embolden problem. This is the frame that allows him to present withdrawal as cowardly and foolish, while continued occupation is the only sensible and courageous move. The criticism of cutting and running (can someone tell me what the 'cutting' refers to in that expression?) and the "We fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" nonsense depend on this kind of framing. The criticism of war critics as enemies of America is probably its most sinister expression.
As far as the future of Iraq is concerned, what we actually have is a how-do-we-get-everybody-to-play-nice problem. We need to get a bunch of interspersed ethnoreligious groups to put aside their longstanding grievances and see one another as fellow citizens in a democracy. Given the extent to which the populations are swirled together and the bloodiness of poorly supervised partitions (several million were killed when Pakistan split from India, and the countries are still often at each others' throats) dividing the country three ways isn't a great answer. So we've got to find a way for them to live together.
