[Comrade]

Not the military occupation, the liberal democracy we are trying to implement. The occupation is just a prerequisite to success for the new country. Same reason why we stationed troops all over the place in Japan and Germany. The "Germany problem" as it is sometimes, politically incorrectly, refered to.
If we leave before Iraq can stand on it's own, then we just wasted our time. A failed democracy in Iraq will be infinitely worse than Saddam ever was, because the Islamic fundamentalists could go, "See! God has struck down that heathen contruct! We must follow the word of God (i.e. the fundamentalist perception of the Quran)."
A successful Iraq is NOT good for other fundamentalist leaders, because a successful, liberal Arab country? Khomeini once said that America is successful, despite breaking all of the fundamentalist (i need a better word, that one is too long) laws, is because it is in league with Satan. Yet, an Arabic culture that shows fundamentalism is NOT the path to success...

If you want to compare something.
The Bible says that homosexuals should be burned, also people who plant 2 different crops side by side should also be killed. But people have recognized, during the Reformation (am I saying the right movement?) that there are parts of the Bible which are simply products of their times. Fundamentalism is that in order to be a holy society, we MUST burn those homos and farmers. Liberalism is saying, "You know, The Quran is a good book, but some parts of it..."
Right now, admitting that any part of the Quran could be wrong is heresy. The objective would be to change that, through making a liberal society, and Iraq (more specifically, Baghdad) is the traditional capitol of the Arabic world.

Do you see what I mean?