The Iraq war?

Question

I want to see how many people agree with me on my new thinking. I believe we've already won the Iraq war. We had two main goals at the beginning--make sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. During the war we added the third goal of establishing democracy. When we went in we found no WMD's, so that accomplishes number one, albeit we did it the hard way. We removed Saddam from power, so we've done number 2 as well. The hard one is number 3, but I believe we've accomplished that as well. I would define democracy as a choice belonging to the people. Well, the Iraqis voted and established a government. The Iraqis then promptly chose civil war and to a point, terrorism. The fact that they did not make the choice we wanted them to make doesn't change the fact that they did make the choice, so in essence democracy was established and therefore we won.

Remaining further in Iraq says to the Iraqis, "We will provide you the choice, just so long as you make my...I'm sorry, the right choice." Which while not outright dictatorship, has the feel of a dictatorship to it. Which is why I believe they fight us so hard, because they instinctually feel that they are about to be placed back into a dictatorship, just under America rather than Saddam. Leaving now seems to me the only way to give democracy a real chance in Iraq now. They will kill each other at first, but eventually realize peace and life are better than war and death. They will then either set it up themselves for peace, or ask us back in (but help us this time) to establish peace properly. It takes a chance at a new terrorist state, but our current way seems to almost guarantee Iraq will become a terrorist state. I'd like to see if others agree with my new logic.

When I said we accomplished the first one (made sure he had no weapons), I do concede that we didn't have to go to war to do it. But we did make sure he didn't have any, though we lost quite a few (and far more than we should have) of our soldiers doing it. I consider it wrong to have those soldiers and those innocent Iraqis killed, but it did accomplish the goal. That does sound like justification for the war (it isn't, I continue to believe the war is wrong. But we must tailor our thinking to the president if we are to convince him--though it may be impossible to convince him--he has gone the wrong way. Showing we are on his side (we do all want the same things, just disagree on how to get there) may get him thinking in a way of compromise that could stop the killing while still establishing democracy.

Answer 1

??? I question your logic. We didn't go into iraq to SEE if they had wmd - we told the world that there WERE wmds there and we had to get them out. So right there - your logic is off.

FP

Answer 2

Problems with your "new" thinking.
1. Both Republican and Democrat politicians believed there were WMD's due to intelligence information.
2. The Iraqi citizens are not in a civil war through their own choices. Insurgents and terrorists from other Islamic countries have brought this problem to them. They are not the people of Iraq.

Answer 3

Strongly think we should declare victory and take 4/5 of troops home for PR let one group that specifically volunteer to stay paid by Iraq. Use some common sense: Do you really think Israel want Democratic Iraq that might attack them; Do you think Saudis what Democratic Iraq that might lead to instability in their country; Do you think Iran wants Democratic stable Iraq that makes taking it over harder;

Answer 4

Lets end it in a hurry .We disappear overnight and leave them wondering what is happening .
Send some jets in low over the cities dropping notes to leave now or be destroyed .