Iraq--Pounding Sand Down a Rathole?

The argument goes on: should we withdraw or fight on for years to come? Remember Viet Nam? The same arguments are being given for staying the course or getting out. To some it is the principle that we don't give in to terrorists, giving in will encourage more attacks or taking over territory--remember the "Domino Theory"?
What about fighting a war that wasn't merited in the first place--Bush gives a lame excuse for his actions by retorting; "Would you prefer that Saddam still being in power?" A non sequtir perhaps? A return question might be; are the Iraqi people better off after four years of occupation? But aside from that argument what about the argument about our pounding sand down a rathole? The arab world can procreate faster than we can kill them so what is the point? The longer we stay the more resentment we create, in Iraq and elsewhere.
At some point we will have to make the decision to leave, and that means some civilian telling our military that we are getting out. Of course Bush can't do that because his ego is involved; so, that means some Democrat, or Democratic administration, will be left holding the bag (Iraq). Then Bush and his supporters will all be pointing fingers at the Democrats for "losing" the war. Some strategy! You might add Iran in the mess for Bush and Cheney aren't going to let the Democrats take over and let Iran get a "bomb". Or so that is their thinking.
So are we to continue to lose Americans and spend billions of dollars, that could go for much better purposes, for little gain; or choose a course that gets us out of a quagmire within a period of time--such as two years. That gives a realistic timetable, with enough time to accomplish some political solutions, yet is not short enough that the insurgents can take advantage. A time-table could in fact "defuse" the conflict. The insurgents would lose their basis for recruitment. Why try to induce someone to leave when they plan to leave anyway?