Since Saddam can't return to power, why shouldn't we leave?

[ButterflyBlood]

That was the whole right wing talking point, if we left, Saddam would seize control again. But now he's caught and he can't. What reason is there for our troops to stay in that hellhole? They need to get out now.

[northzax]

1. who would seize power?

there's your answer. If we can (and I'm not saying we can, but we must) leave behind us some decent structures of government, then the Iraqis will have a fighting chance. But without government at all, without a civilian infrastructure, we get President al-Sadr. but maybe that's a good idea, it worked for Iran at least.

[Bridget Burke]

2. Because Saddam & WMD's were not the real reasons for the war.

Those in charge really want a military foothold in the Middle East. Several permanent bases are being built, which we'll retain after the puppet government is put into place.

The good of the Iraqi people & the good of the majority of the American people are irrelevant.

[Homer12]

3. I agree

The Middle east is a military wedge on Asia. It's a long-term plan to keep world-dominance.


Sure, the oil is good, but China is on a roll.

[patricia92243]

4. I heard one Iraqi saying"At least when Saddam was in charge, we had.......

electricity. I think most of them have had all the freedom they can tolerate and wish they had Saddam back. As time goes on, they will want him back and reject us more and more.

[patcox2]

5. Because we broke it and we have a moral obligation to fix it.

Look at Afghanistan, they haven't been doing so grand since the Soviets "just left."

Just because someone is against "just leaving" doesn't mean they arce pro-war or an evil imperialist just like Bush. If, for example, a democratic president wer elected, he would not pull out the troops. But it would be completely different if our staying there were accompanied by a lot of other changes, such as:

1. UN approval, real UN participation (troops and money), and real multilateral decision-making by a true colalition. This would establish legitimacy and change it from an occupation to a genuine international effort to assist a shattered country to restore order.

2. The creation of a real representative Iraqi provisional authority, rather than a bunch of puppets and crooks like Chalabi. This too would establish real legitimacy, which is important in reaching peaceful and negotiated solutions to the factional conflicts in Iraq.

A continued US military presence in Iraq under these circumstances would be a completely different situation from what we have now. Looking at a picture of a dead baby and screaming "get them out now" helps noone, nor does accusing anyone who doesn't likewise throw reason to the wind of being evil. Just leaving now would leave a vaccuum, and God only knows what would happen, how about an invasion by Iran, to start with, and the creation of a fundamentalist shiite state? How would the kurds react to that? How would the Sunni react to that? If you think no more babies would die in that chaos, you are fooling yourself.