To quote them:

"Iraq isn't stable; it's radically unstable. A pullout now risks a
regime controlled by radical Shiites like Moktada al-Sadr--another ally
for Iran, to add to Baathist Syria and Hezbollah-ruled Lebanon. That
isn't near-victory; it's total defeat."

It's total defeat because the US is doing nothing on the ground there to
change any of the underlying problems and is instead exacerbating them.

Even with our presence, Iraq is radically unstable.

Even with our presence, al-Sadr is still an ally of Iran, and his army
still controls the ground.

Even with our presence, the current regime still supports Hezbolloh, as
recent demonstrations have shown.

As a matter of fact, instability is increasing, and al-Sadr's army grows
stronger by the day, and Iran is becoming more embolden.

The goal of 'democracy in Iraq' flew out the window some months ago when
we realized it was impossible there. The idea was, as you remember, to
light the spark of democracy in Iraq, and then this would spread 'our
way of life' throughout the Middle East'. The trouble was, the Gazans
elected a terrorist group to represent them, and the Lebanese did as
well. So, the spark we setoff has terribly destabilized the Middle East.

So, if we withdrew, what would change?

Nothing.

Nothing, with the exception that we wouldn't be there making the
situation worse, and we could better deploy our troops in the war
against terrorists.