I remember before the invasion there were statistics pointing to the increased mortality rate in the years between the Iraq Wars.

The embargo designed to keep Saddam from selling oil for his own benefit (the only point at which it failed, it seems) and to keep him from importing potentially dangerous "materials" for the production of WMDs had the negative side effect of limiting access to medicine and medical equipment. Also mal-nutrition and other health problems had increased. 

When extrapolated from the mortality rate etc, some numbers I saw gave the number of "indirect deaths" (i.e. not actual victims of violence but rather the side effects of war and the embargo in the period between the armed conflicts) as over half a million.

I think if the argument was about pre-emptively saving Iraqis, the point where the mistake was made was in not going all the way the first time (and I know there were issues of regional stability that seemed to make it necessary for them to leave Saddam in place, but with hindsight it seems that those issues had been easier to resolve at the time than they are now.)

But the "how many would have died under Saddam" argument seems specious to me. His worst excesses, the murder of thousands of Kurds with poison gas, were tolerated by the US when he was their ally. As were a lot of his other severe crimes. Without a severe "Mea Culpa" from the US government, I don't see how they can use that argument with a straight face.

Saddam is gone. Good. But I wish the collateral damages hadn't been this great. And I really wish there could be a real, meaningful debate about whether the extent of collateral damages could have been curtailed and whether there are ways to end this war without having to defer to domestic US political concerns. (Always wondering whether workable plans for peace will be rejected if they don't fit the political agenda of leading US politicians.)   

But the "how many would have died under Saddam" argument seems specious to me. His worst excesses, the murder of thousands of Kurds with poison gas, were tolerated by the US when he was their ally. As were a lot of his other severe crimes. Without a severe "Mea Culpa" from the US government, I don't see how they can use that argument with a straight face

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

He was seen as the lesser of two evils at the time just like Stalin in the 1940s.

Since Jodie already provided the statistics of Iraqi deaths since the war started.

Pre-War Death Toll under Saddam

1978-1979
Up to 7,000 Iraqi communists were executed by orders of the Ba'athist regime.

1982
The specific atrocity for which Saddam was hanged: 148 Shias were murdered in the village of Dujail.

1984
Up to 4,000 political prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail were tortured and killed. Saddam's favoured methods of torture included cutting off genitalia, gouging out eyes and acid baths.

1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.

1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into mass graves.

1988
On March 16, in the worst single atrocity of the Anfal campaign, 5,000 Kurds were killed when Saddam ordered planes to drop a mixture of mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin on the town of Halabja.

1990-1991
About 25,000 Iraqi troops are thought to have died in the seven-month Gulf War, which began when US-led forces entered Iraq following Saddam's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied wildly - up to 200,000. The coalition death toll was 378 and many troops suffered from the unexplained "Gulf War syndrome".

1991
Tens of thousands were killed as Saddam attempted to put down a popular rebellion following his defeat by the US-led forces in February 1991. More than 100,000 Shias were killed; a similar number of Kurds died. About 200,000 Marsh Arabs were killed or made homeless.

1993-1998
About 3,000 prisoners were machine-gunned to death at Mahjar prison in central Baghdad.

Wow, I'm absolutely in the minority here...

Unless the situation gets a whole lot worse in Iraq, I support staying in it for at least several more years at near current troop levels, and maybe decades at reduced levels.  I think that's the only option we have that has a shot at salvaging something halfway good out of this.

And by 'good', I mean a relatively stable and free democratized, Western-allied, nation in the Middle East, while avoiding a civil war.  There's no guarantee we'll get there, but I think it's the only decent path we have out of this.

Keith:

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am not sure what the right tack is -- I really really understand those who want a total withdrawl.  I don't want to see anymore of our soldiers sacrificed either.  But I think we do owe something to the Iraqi people for the mess we made and I don't believe its in our interests to let the country fall further into a disarray or open civil war.  I'm not sure what the right course is.  One of the many reasons I'm glad I'm not running for president.

Wow, I'm absolutely in the minority here...

Unless the situation gets a whole lot worse in Iraq, I support staying in it for at least several more years at near current troop levels, and maybe decades at reduced levels.  I think that's the only option we have that has a shot at salvaging something halfway good out of this.
-----------------------------------------------

I don't think you're in the minority at all.  Now that we're there, absolutely we must stay.  We broke it, we must fix it.  Then we must beg forgiveness.  That's right, BEG.

Also, we must hold those who caused this mess responsible, and we must vow not to let it happen again.  In other words, we need to throw out a lot of career politicians, and put a few in prison as well.

Will we?  Spoiler vision: nope

Mike:

I think your scenario can work if the government is stable and there is an capable self defense network (e.g. Army) but I don't think either exist as Iraq is presently constituted.  How do we get to a stable government and capable army if we just up and leave?  Thats the question.

In a war you don't broadcast your strategy to the world.