@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:And yes, fighting the groups doing the attacks on civilians is a good thing, but we shouldnt be there doing it.
We'd have removed a tyrant to replace with a bloodbath to establish the next tyrant. Given that Saddam was contained and did not pose the threat to his own people or other nations that this chaos would present, that would have been a very pointless cruelty to Iraq.
In order to establish a democratic government in Iraq it was necessary to become an occupier, and as such there are legal obligations to provide security.
In order to conclusively search for WMDs it was necessary to occupy Iraq.
I could go on, but basically every objective and pretext used to sell this war required a lot more than to stiff the Iraqis on security after breaking their country.
I subscribe to the "you break it you bought it" philosophy here, and am always surprised at the willingness to cut our own losses when we are responsible for the whole mess.
Plunging Iraq into the chaos that there would have been in a power vacuum is something I would find much worse than the war as it was prosecuted, and that's saying a lot as I consider it the worst US foreign policy decision of my lifetime.
Would you really think the war would be a net positive just to capture Saddam and leave the country to chaos? States like Iran would have had a field day, it's just not a net positive any way you slice that. The Sunni/Shiite conflict would have played out so much worse, and could have rendered Iraq unstable for decades.
If we pulled out after capturing Saddam, I think we would have had to come back shortly anyway in an even worse situation (possibly even destabilizing the whole region).
"Liberator" is a meaningless word if it means everyone "liberated" is left in far worse shape than they were found in.