What is the best possible way for the U.S. to get out Iraq at this time? Some critics, politicians, and analysts agree there should be less military action by the White House, and more of a regional solution.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee, putting the Iraq crisis in perspective, writes in The Grio that, in 2002, President George W. Bush and his administration had misled America by claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Since these weapons were allegedly there, then that country posed a threat to the U.S.'s national security. Lee further states that, during that time, the White House's public relations campaign's main goal was to justify an "unnecessary war of choice in Iraq," The Grio reported.

Over a decade later, with over 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead, some people want less military action in Iraq. However, Washington has a responsibility to provide proper security before they pull out of that region; since the U.S. toppled the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein the sectarian violence has not been quelled.

The Editorial of "El Diario NY," dated June 20 of this year, stated that the approach to the war in Iraq has been poorly managed, and a complete failure. It is the results of these failures that have increased the expansion of Islamic extremism, and it has caused the loss of thousands of soldiers' lives. The Editorial further points out that "neoconservatives" who have criticized President Barack Obama's administration for "losing Iraq" reveals that the conservatives do not want to take responsibility for their actions by having supported the Iraq war in the past, and that they would never admit that they were wrong.

"El Diario NY" and political analyst Chris Bambery can agree that the solution has to be handled by its own region. In an interview with the RT, an online publication, Bambery was asked, if U.S. officials are open to having direct talks with Iran on Iraq's growing violence, why is Washington seeking help from its arch rival?

Bambery states that the arch-rival is perhaps providing weapons and training, and with that they could protect the holy shrines for the Shia. The situation is both delicate and complicated, Bambery explains; he says that Iranians have always stayed out of the international conflicts, but America is in a difficult position because the U.S. perhaps needs help, RT reported.

Nevertheless, Bambery added that there has been a huge debate now taking place in Britain about America's 2003 invasion which resulted in the creation of divisions. Perhaps America was responsible, as a result of the invasion three separate groups emerged that further divided Iraq -- they were "the Sunni, the Shia and the Kurdish one, co-opting the Sunni militia which have been part of the resistance at the beginning of the occupation, co-opting them and helping them turning against the Shia," RT reported.

There are two ways to handling Iraq's crisis while still protecting the U.S. military. Firstly, reduced military action should start now. Perhaps, Washington should focus their attention on a feasible long-term, regional political and diplomatic solution, the Huffington Post reported. It continued, "Iraq once again illustrates the harsh reality that there are limits to what U.S. military force can accomplish despite the best intentions of its elected leaders, soldiers, and citizens."

The second way to handling the crisis is to have the countries in that region negotiate a solution. It is mainly up to the countries.