What's a little genocide?

The New York Times joins the "best way out of war is to surrender" league:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Most of those demanding an immediate withdrawal focus on the "Bush lied, people died" past and are understandably reluctant to talk about the way the world has been shaped by the war and what is likely to happen if we do leave. The Times does the obligatory Bush-bashing, but then does slip into an honest assessment -- brutally honest, even:

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

So, perhaps, reprisals, further ethnic cleansing, even more blood and chaos, not to mention genocide, and still we leave? Remarkable. With all the fence-mending the Times mentions that we will have to do post-Iraq, if leaves out the damage from yet again showing we make promises we do not keep and do not finish what we start. The Times is right that the world needs "the wise application of American power and principles." But who will trust us to use it?