Regardless of the question whether I agree(d) with the decision to go to war (which I didn't and still don't), I still believe it would have been worth fighting if a stable, well working democracy now persists in Iraq.
But it's still too early to tell. We'll have to see what happens after the US leave. Still possible that it falls apart in civil war between the different factions, or that one party or faction will stage a coup and establish yet another dictatorship, and/or that Iran takes over and establishes an islamist Shia regime there, for that Iraq becomes their satellite.
In all these cases, all the fighting would have been in vein and for nothing, it would have caused just unnecessary bloodshed, billions of dollars, and the situation for the Iraqi people would be just as bad as under Saddam, and the strategic situation just as bad for the US, if not worse, than it was before the invasion.
Another question I would like to add is, do you believe they should of left sooner?
No. I would have wished that once the decision for invasion had been taken, there was a more thorough plan for a sufficient post-invasion stabilization. But Rumsfeld decided to go on with very few troops only, because he believed more are not necessary, because the US will indeed be welcomed and celebrated as liberators. Obviously, this did not happen. Instead, we had years of rampant crime, terrorist attacks and general instability.
But I think once the US decided to topple Saddam, it was their responsibility to clean up the mess afterwards and make sure they leave a stable Iraq that's worth living in for the Iraqi people.
Maybe now, the point has been reached where withdrawal is worth a try. Hope it works.
