No---I don't think that Iraq should be left to its own devices right now. The necessity for a military presence has arisen in the first place, however, because of hamhanded unilateral action on the part of the United States of America, [Coalition? --Don't gimme that! The US and a retinue of creeps with Tony Blair at the head of the queue.]And may I suggest to Martin G. that the U.N. got NO chance from Busb-Blair and co. If you are capable of being honest at all, you will agree that the US --both right and out-of-sight-right parties ---have no intention of ever using the UN as anything other than a tool for US convenience. Something like NATO in fact.
   The "coalition" attacked Iraq because of oil. Oil.OIL. Not because of the WMDs they hoped the Iraqis had. Not because of the despotic rule of their erstwhile friend Hussein. Because of oil, and the control of the oilfields. Why d'ye think the US bases are being withdrawn from Saudi? ---Because they haven't the slightest intention of "bringing the troops home" from Iraq. The US army is there for a long, long, time. That's where the new bases are being built. They see a future that guarantees oil supply, that ensures profits for their corporations, and that guarantees a powerful Mideast friend in the State of Israel.
   They have miscalculated the will of the Iraqi people, and are paying in lives and fiscal chaos now, and will do so for a long time to come. Withdrawing now would leave utter chaos and lives would be lost in the local struggle for power. But in the end [and a lot more quickly than under an unwanted occupation] outside help would be welcomed, and the people would get their lives, and their resources, returned to them.