Uh-huh. Perhaps you're not aware, Warlock, but there could be nothing WORSE for US interests than giving the Iraqis a "free" government. The Shias would unquestionably ally with Iran (who'd actually be quite a lot mroe dangerous than Saddam ever could, especially with the Iraqi weaponry the Shias could provide), the Kurds would start a civil war over their desire to separate and hence prompt an invasion by Turkey, and there's enough of Iraq that's anti-US enough that not a lot would change. Never mind that Saddam's government had made itself rather integral to the well-being of most of the populace- sure, in ten years the country might be self-sufficient, but until then there's no way in hell we can feed all those people, it's a logistical nightmare even assuming we have the time, money, and resources to even try (which we might, but we certainly don't have the attention span. The Afghans were largely self-reliant, so it wasn't all that bad that we basically ditched them after the war. Iraqis would require more government attention than the people of the US do, and they wouldn't have a government properly capable of it yet). So, basically, the Iraqis would end up with a fractured state with a head that was marginally less repressive and more liberal than Saddam, but who would be weak and hence more dangerous in the long run, in that he couldn't make short work of any terrorist groups (Saddam has no tolerance for al Qaeda on his turf, because they're about as much a threat to him as to the US).
A US-led military dictatorship, or a puppet government (and a vicious one at that) would be the only options that even stand a chance of working. Liberty for the Iraqis would be severely counterproductive when their interests run so counter to our own, and honestly, there's no reason at all that the US would do it.
Poll
