Few days ago the "Simply put" show on Bloomberg radio rose this question again: Tom Moroney argued that leaving Iraq will slide that country into blood bath; Michael Goldman called to remove most forces except those that will protect Kurds. While I see valid points in both sides, I
have to disagree with both. While I clearly understand that the real reasons of this war are not WMD and terrorists, but oil, I call to stick with our official
position, which calls us “liberators” and not “occupants”.

Iraq has now its own elected parliament, which is supposed to be responsible for the country future. Should we ask first this college of representatives about the future of American forces in their country and deliver the answer to the American public? Should we also conduct public polls
to get the answer on the question if Iraqi public regards us as liberators or occupants, and what they expect us to do to be more liberators and less occupants? And just to lift the concerns of the liberals (as myself) that we (thanks to right wing and m**rfucker Bush) came to Iraq for oil, should we make
all steps to return the control over oil fields back to Iraqis?

I have similar accusations toward left wing as well. Why do I see photos of Cindy Sheehan with the 2245 number on her T-shirt? Are her boobs too small to fit the number of 100,000 (or something like that) dead Iraqis, choked with the democracy we had showed into their throats? Are they,
according to Sheehan, second-grade animals, not worth counting in their mass graves? If we just leave right now, will the Iraqi civil war sink the country into bloodbath, which we can and must prevent? And if another 2245 Americans have to die – its their duty and our responsibility is just to train them better and deploy wisely.

What I want to see is the Iraqi representatives, and not Rumsfeld and Sheehan, to decide should we leave or should we stay, and if we stay – where exactly we should stay and how exactly we should behave.