Like a lot of folks who were dead set against invading a sovereign country (which posed no threat to us) I believed that once in, pulling out before the country was stable, safe and secure would be even more irresponsible. An Illinois congresswoman (Shakowski-D I believe) made an interesting argument against that opinion on lefty talk radio today.
Framed within her justification of voting against the latest $80B W has requested, she made a very practical point. It would be good money after bad, which will yield the same progress in Iraq as the previous $200B has; that is, none. Conditions are growing increasingly more violent, services and infrastructure are not being built, and oil is not flowing as predicted. The largest obstacle to progress, she contends, is the occupier's continued presence. And while she acknowledged that there was considerable risk in leaving an anarchistic vacuum, our current plan is going nowhere.
Interesting food for thought.