What if Iraqis want sectarian strife and violence?
What if Iraqis simply refuse to work cooperatively with those outside their tribe, their region or their sect?
What if Afghanis reject democracy, modernity and women's rights?
What if Pakistanis in fact want a more theocratic fundamentalist state?
Is there any factual basis for the belief that a 50,000 strong residual "training" force in Iraq will convince Iraqis to accept basic elementary concepts of democratic pluralism? or that 75,000 troops in Afghanistan might convince Afghanis of the error of their ways?
Look at examples from our own Western history.
Did 50,000 foreign troops convince Charles V to grant freedom of religion to Protestants in the Netherlands? or, to respect the federal rights of the constituent units of his empire?
Did repeated threats of foreign intervention and invasion convince either Mary I of England, or Elizabeth I of England, or Mary I of Scotland, to respect the rights of other religions, states and regions?
For some reason, we continue to ignore history, and project our modern values onto more traditional societies. There were no historical or factual bases for the neo con belief that they could militarily transform Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan into Iowa and Nebraska and Kansas. There's still none. And, it's still a waste of lives and treasure to try to "pacify" the region.