Well, there's a lot that we don't know.
QFT
But I think one thing that we DO know is that fewer American soldiers will die if we pull out.
This is your thought. I'm not so sure about that. It all depends on the time-line and scope with which you bound that statement. Will fewer die in Iraq in the next year? Almost assuredly this is true. How about ten years in the Middle East? Will fewer or larger numbers of American (or British, or Australian, or Italian, or Polish, or...) soldiers die in the Middle East in the next ten years if we pull out now? How about world-wide over the next 20?
And no, I don't believe we are "fighting them over there rather than fighting them here".
This country isn't that hard to get into, especially when you consider that if you can get into either Mexico or Canada you can get into the US even MORE easily.
So I assuem you are all for a border fence/wall.
If we went to get WMDs they either were never there or they're gone.
One of the justifications for invading Iraq was to ensure that WMD of the Saddam regime were not distributed to terrorists who would then use them against the United States or its allies. Whether or not this was successful will not be known for a few years. To date it has been.
If we went to get Sadaam he's about to be executed.
This would be a good signal to use to get out. When he and his first tier cronies are gone, there's no chance they will return to power. Regime Change can be checked off the list.
Since those two missions were accomplished, we've been spinning reasons why we must stay in perpetuity. I think our continued presence has caused the violence to rise as well.
I would argue that our lack of overwhelming presence has caused violence to rise. This is my shit-or-get-off-the-pot theory. Either put another 100,000-200,000 troops in now for at least the next two years, or get out over the next two years. Do one or the other. I believe the US media has use the pentagon references of Go Big and Go Home as the options. I think Go Long, the other option, is a mistake.
The insurgents know there's no good reason for us to still be there too...
To which insurgents are you referring? The radical Iranian-influenced Shia would now like us gone so they can carry out the pogrom. The moderate Shia would still like us there to help keep the lid on. The moderate Sunni, no matter how few, want us there to protect them against the coming storm of radical Iranian-influenced Shia. The radical Sunni, no matter how few, can't decide if they a) want us there for protection, b) want us there as a target/recruiting source, or c) want us gone so they can try and overthrow the Shia. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda operative run around whispering in everyone's ear, slide money across the table, manufacture/supply weapons, and otherwise stir the pot to make America (and its allies) look weak an ineffectual. So it all depends on who you ask.
...UNLESS we want permanent bases and/or oil.
Permanent bases, at this point, whether the US was overwhelming successful or not, would be a bad idea. I think that’s why the US Administration has been denying wanting that outcome. Besides, the US has bases all over that region. We will have to find a place for all those who were in Saudi Arabia before OIF; one of the reasons, btw, that Al Qaeda claimed a grievance against the US.
The US doesn’t want their oil as in take it. The US wants easy access without those petrodollars going to support terrorism. The US wants guilt-free accessible oil. It makes sense if the global economy is petroleum based.