A plan for Iraq

I've been taking a look at the Burner/Edwards plan for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq (I kept seeing their icon on various sites and decided to give it a whirl).

US military involvement in Iraq has been an almighty mess. On the plus side: we got to Baghdad quickly and casualties in the main combat phase were considerably lighter than expected; Saddam Hussein has been deposed, elections have been held and a new government is in place. On the negative side: pretty much everything else.

In the medium term at least, things don't seem likely to improve a whole lot and the political process in Iraq looks like it's going nowhere fast, So, I'm interested in listening to any plan that promises to bring the troops home, ensure peace and stability for the Iraqis and protect wider US strategic interests:-

There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and remove all of our troops from Iraq.

Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq's neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.

What about those other players in the region? The report acknowledges the scale of the problem:-

Iraq’s neighbors are actively intervening directly in Iraq’s affairs, exacerbating domestic political and ethnic fault lines and increasing internal instability. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are all active inside of Iraq, and we need to provide incentives for them to become stabilizing rather than destabilizing forces.

And what about our strategic interests in the region?

[U]nderaddressed threats include nuclear proliferation, pandemics, terrorism, climate change, and energy supply bottlenecks. The further destabilization of the Middle East is also a growing threat to U.S. national security. Al Qaeda’s strength is growing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Iran’s power is growing.

Unfortunately, apart from removing US dependence on ME oil by devising a US based energy policy, the plan doesn't really seem to me to directly address any of the strategic threats it identifies. And, while understandable in practice, in context and given the need for clarity, this is disappointing:-

In some cases, no existing legislation or clear recommendations exist and new authorizing legislation plus careful planning would be required.

Which cases? What kind of plans? What part do these play in the whole?

The plan’s answer to instability in Iraq, interference from other regimes in the region and threats to wider US strategic interests involves, as far as I understand it:

• A concerted diplomatic effort based around a commitment to multilateralism;

• Increased use of economic leverage, together with our allies, in the form of trade, aid and investment incentives (rather than sanctions);

• A commitment to honor humanitarian principles in order to improve America's global standing and moral authority;

• Renewed co-operation with international institutions in order to achieve a long term solution in Iraq and the wider region.

The problem I have is all those things make perfect sense to me, but only when allied with American military engagement in Iraq; they don't make a lot of sense in the context of withdrawal.

It may be possible to bring the troops home quickly, many are determined upon it, but I doubt it can presently be done without great cost to peace and stability in Iraq and to wider US interests.