The Haditha incident is just symptomatic of the consequences of our aggression in Iraq. The point is how to minimize its consequences with a reasonable alternative.

Bush's surge of troops in Iraq risks causing Saudi Arabia to fund the Sunni insurgency, or severely cut oil production, or maybe even the overthrow of the monarchy by radical Saudi Sunni's. The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendation of embedding more U.S. troops with Iraqi armed forces risks many more casualties and the taking of U.S. troops as hostages. Former Senator George McGovern has proposed a plan for the U.S. to pay for an International Stabilization Force, from other Islamic countries, to be paid for by the U.S. and to replace our military occupation. But if our military, with its firepower and coordination hasn't been able to pacify Iraq, what chance would a less powerful, less well coordinated international force have of doing so? A further problem is that such a force would have to be all Sunni, all Shia or some mixture. An all one-sect force would simply be at war with the native-Iraqi other-sect militias, while a mixed force could be torn apart by the same sectarian violence already pulling Iraq apart. Like a surge, it runs the enormous risk of setting off international conflict and oil supply disruption in the Muslim world.
We broke Iraq. We can't fix it. What gives us the duty or even a right to keep occupying a country we destroyed? What gives us a right overriding that of Iraqis, or even more regional fundamentalist Muslims to take control? There is a fourth alternative that may reduce violence and allow us to do some good for the Iraqis. That alternative is to facilitate emigration of our Iraqi allies (like in Viet Nam at the end) or relocation of Iraqi's, by sect, and redeploment of our troops to areas where they could be out of the way of lessened sectarian violence.
Our troops could escort Sunni's, Shia and Kurds, on a voluntary separation basis, to regions of co-religionists or co-nationals rebuilt and temporarily protected by them. For a crude example rule, consider "all Baghdadi Sunni's west of the Tigris, all Shia east of the Tigris." Those Iraqi's who insist on neither emigrating nor separating by voluntary relocation would simply get our good wishes for survival. We could let the sectarian militias run the police in their co-religionist neighborhoods. If stability grows, we would help rebuild further. We would give actual building materials, supplies and logistics to the Shia, Sunni's and Kurds, not money and guns like Bush's incompetents did to their puppets.
U.S. troops could be redeployed from all over Iraq to its' northwest to southeast border with Syria, Turkey and Iran. U.S. forces could be placed largely in Shia areas unsuitable for aggression because it is either non-urban, mountainous or wet, between Iran and Iraq's main oil fields, guarding them from Iran, like containment forces worked in Europe and Korea. Put them in bases east of any major cities like Mosul, Kirkuk, Sulaymaniyah, Samarra, Baghdad, Al Kut, Al Amarah and Basrah. Iran and Syria could be warned that we will sustain Iraq's central government. In reality Iraq will become, hopefully, a relatively pacified Kurdish north, Sunni west and Shia east. We would agree to gradual withdrawal of our forces as, and when Iraq becomes more peaceful. We could move the whole secular government, with all of its people to an isolated, hardened base in this region, its independence from Iran protected by our redeployed troops and air power. The ISG says this would cost too much. Nonsense! The ISG admits the war already cost $400 billion, not to mention the 450,000 to 940,000 Iraqi lives claimed by the Lancet mortality study and 3,000 American ones.
The re-mission of U.S. troops would thus be to 1) facilitate emigration or relocation of Iraqi's, 2) protect the fledgling Iraq federal government and 3) act as containment forces, protecting Iraq's oil from Iran and seeing to it that all Iraqis got equal shares of Iraq's oil wealth that is realized though modernization of production by the international oil companies.
Such redeployment is awkward for our usually highly mobile forces and has some risks. In particular, U.S. troops in the northwest could become involved in the struggle among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen over Kirkuk. But Kirkuk would be at worst a mini-Baghdad and maybe susceptible to a Baghdad-like relocation described above. This alternative is politically realistic. It could reduce violence in Iraq, allow our troops some positive missions, and maybe eventually let us out with some honor. After all, our troops have been in Europe for over 60 years and in Korea for over 50 years.

There are 14 Super Bases built in Iraq, each costing BILLIONS of dollars, The USA ain't going nowhere! Oil Oil Oil, and fuck Democracy, WMD or civilians deaths. Oh, and speaking of civilian deaths, the comment re 60 out of 1000 deaths being insurgent, the rest innocent, hmmm 94%, no? Let us extrapolate that with the John Hopkins/Lancet survey, the one stating, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THAT 650,000 iRAQIS HAVE DIED since the illegal invasion. Hmmm, 650,000 x 94% = 611,000 innocents dead, because Amerika is a rogue, criminal State. Forget North Korea, true evil is murdering an entire civilization whilst watching The Simpsons. Happy Fucking New Year, ay wot?