way to complex a question to answer, imo. for example, you say "Assuming that the U.S. continued to provide $$ and equipment to the new Iraqi government", but what does that entail? does that include a full array of modern armaments? what are the limitations on our assitance? will we, for example, continue to provide $$ and weapons if the government starts to deviate from our vision for the country?

the idea of "you broke it you bought it" may not really apply to iraq. i mean, in a way it was already broken, as a concept. should we try to maintain an artificial (and failed) state in that region anyway, from a humanitarian point of view?

if i had to hazzard a guess, i think the insecurity of the nation would eventually lead a strong shi'a militant government to take over. in such a case, we'd probably see a lot of intervention by iran and some more surreptitious intervention by the US, israel and the saudis. but it's just a guess.