With all due respect, I don’t believe anyone feels as though we need to “run away” from them. Some do feel, however, that the overall mission is doomed not to succeed as intended due to Iraqi corruption, ongoing insurgency, negative internal influences (Al-Sadr, AQ, anti-west sentiment), negative external influences (Iran, Syria) and the endless Sunni - Shiite - Kurd bullshit.
I would say that the most reasonable two scenarios are to “Balkanize” the country into three districts or just let the bastards kill each other off in mass and see where things go from there. We can protect our bases there and our personnel, just no longer a government (and large segment of the population) that won’t help themselves. Then instead of 150,000 troops there full time we would need about 30,000 or so.
As far as AQ in Iraq, we continue to hit them anytime and anywhere we please. If Iran gets too entangled, we hit them, too. Otherwise, we stand down and, for the most part, let them have most of their God forsaken country back. They will not destabilize the region if we keep a close eye on things and only act when such a destabilization appears likely. Either way, we are not running anywhere as we are still a presence not to be messed with in the region.
Yes, I am sure that someone will tell me why the latter suggestion won’t work or isn’t practical. But, what really will work or is practical there anymore? More of the same? Maybe that will pan out one day, but when and how? And at what cost to our families and our financially ailing country?
Maybe it would be better to let them become as weak and broken as Afghanistan was before we try to intervene and establish a Democracy. More infrastructure work sure, but also likely less organized resistance both militarily and internally. Plus, then in the end we can say we hung in there, so to speak.