Was Iraq worth it?

Now that we are winding down operations in Iraq and soon more troops will be pulled out, what have we gained from this war, (besides thousand killed and tens of thousands injured; most with limbs missing and/or brain trauma, not counting PDSD)?

We have removed Saddam from power and have a semi-democratic national government. But how effective is this government and is the country now unified or still split?

There is a constant smoldering civil war between the factions that make up Iraq. Add to this the desire of Iran to either ally with Iraq in very close diplomatic relations that give them some trade expansion, as well as access to the large oil reserves. Iran, as they have wanted in the past, to occupy Iraq and merge it into Iran so they have total control of the oil and other resources.

It was stated many times by the past administration that no permanent bases would be established in Iraq, that this is not true. We have built a major complex for permanent occupation in an attempt to secure the oil reserves for western use. When the final day comes, this is going to be a major conflict with the Iraqis. Even the massive embassy is a sign of an overlord, not much different than the grand shrines Saddam built for himself. We will continue to be considered an occupier or manipulator of the national government there. This will not win the hearts and minds of the people, who despise us now.

Granted that strategically having an operations base there is ideal, central to most action that might occur; not getting our Navy caught in the Persian Gulf and no place to go. This also keeps Iran from any major attacks on Iraq to occupy it.

Bush has again handed Obama and any future administrations a major issue to deal with. Constant troop deployment to our permanent base, much like Korea, and a constant threat of attack, with unhappy constituents back home having troops in such a high risk theater. Bush has given the USA a permanent war of sorts.

Can Obama and future presidents persuade our European allies to assist in maintaining troop levels, as it is in their best interest also? However, from an oil access point of view, sharing this with Europe could compromise who controls the oil. As supplies shrink, the country that has control over the remaining reserves will be the economic big gorilla. Isn't that what this is all about in the end? OIL!

This of course brings up the subject of alternative energy in America so we do not need this oil, and thus not beholding to whomever controls the last of the reserves. But if we don't convert to alternative energy, then we will have no choice but to continue to occupy any country that has any oil reserves left. Will we occupy under a joint operation with Europe or will we occupy unilateral and fight the rest of the world for it?

Before George W's war, we had contained Saddam, Iran thought he was still strong enough to hold them off, we had access to the oil at a low price, and there was some stability in the region. Saudi Arabia did not want us to take Saddam out, just contain him. They knew that civil war would break out if he was removed. The only way these fractious counties can survive without civil war is with a very strong dictator that keeps the factions fearful and thus coexist. We saw it in Yugoslavia when Tito left power, genocide occurred between people who use to be neighbors and coworkers from hatred stemming from hundreds of years ago.

But we must recognize that much of the ongoing conflicts in the middle-east are a direct result of Britain and the US by unifying in battle and then later partitioning Persia and Arabia after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Then later voting in the UN contrary to our promised no vote to the region for the establishment of Israel. This set in motion the mess we have today.

Do you think the Iraqi war was worth it?