3 and 4 to me are just infeasible. There can be no 'neutral' administration dedicated to blocking a Ba'athist restoration. So the same problems would remain under the hypothetical of #3.
#4 is even less likely -- that the UN would compose a force remotely equivalent to what the US has there, or that the U.S. Congress would fund it.
The only demand that really counts -- has an operational dimension -- is troops home. To me, doing good at the point of a bayonet is just so Vietnam.
I don't think there would be chaos. There would be three states. Kurdistan, which the U.S. could arm so it could defend itself, along with U.S. persuasion such that Turkey would leave them alone. The south would become a Shi'ite state, possibly merge with Iran. And Saddam or Elvis would be mayor of Baghdad, not incidently in a much weakened position. If you didn't want to invade to depose Saddam at the head of the entire country, why stay to prevent him from ruling some much reduced piece of it?
mbs
1. THE US MUST WITHDRAW NOW
2. WITHDRAWAL IS NOT ENOUGH
3. AN INTERIM, MORE NEUTRAL ADMINISTRATION MUST BE CREATED TO PROVIDE ESSENTIAL POLICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES BEFORE WITHDRAWAL IS COMPLETE
4. THE US SHOULD FUND THIS ADMINISTRATION AND IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION WITH NO STRINGS AID
If you hae a problem with the position, attack the position Michael P, Shane, Ulhas,a nd I actually maintain.
Though Yoshie's objective position is the the US should remain until the Iraqis are strong and organized enough to throw them oute.
jks