Slow withdrawal

In this HNN article, history prof emeritus William Marina complains that almost all the Democratic candidates (with the possible exception of Kucinich and Mike Gravel) envision a "withdrawal" from Iraq will take years. He'd like them to answer three questions about sticking around in Iraq for a few more years:

"1. How much will this add to our already bloated militaryspending which is already severely distorting the whole U.S. economy?
2. How many lives will this cost in the years ahead?
3. And, most importantly, how will this really improve the incredible mess in the Middle East, which this nastion has played a major role in creating since WWII?"

The premise, of course, is that U.S. intervention and armed presence in the Middle East is destabilizing rather than stabilizing. Marina believes that "The real issue is Empire, a project in which the U.S. has been engaged for over a century." When will we be ready to give up this vain and counterproductive quest? I suspect most Americans would do so tomorrow (though an appalling number can be herded into supporting military action against the next pipsqueak "new Hitler") but I don't see much evidence that the formal leaders of either party are interested in cutting back much on running the world.