So now, just as a devil's advocate, let me advance the following question: do we really want troops out?
[WS:] I have been asking the same question for a while too. In the normative terms, I put this question in the framework of creating global governance, which IMO is a necessary condition for socialism. The question thus becomes one about what increases chances of global governance - and from that point of view, the US staying in Iraq is more beneficial than leaving it. I would go as far as saying that US military smashing little Third World nationalist dictatorships does more for creating global governance than these nationalisms being able to thrive.
Of course, this is purely normative. In reality, things will follow the path of the least resistance and the US will stay in Iraq as long as the cost of changing the course will be higher than the cost of maintaining the current path. Since the cost of staying the path is relatively low, both economically and politically - as Iraq is really a low priority for most people here- while the cost of changing the course is relatively high, since it can be construed as an insult to US national pride and a threat to security which are relatively high priorities for most people - the chance are that the US troops will stay in Iraq for the next two to three years if not more.
Another point. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher - there is no such a thing as popular will, only individual wishes. It is therefore wrong to assume that there is a 'popular will' for the US troops to leave (or to stay, or whatever.) What is being portrayed as 'popular wills' are merely opinion of various public opinion leaders mustering support for their points of view.
Wojtek