Absolutely. Until we greatly reduce our profile in Iraq, we will be seen as having an undue influence. And rightfully so. I'm quite sure if the USSR had done this in the 80s, we'd have screamed to the heavens about expansionism. It all hinges on the outcome and this pudding better have a lot of proof. Maybe 180 proof?

>There were three revolutions that I know of that have happened in a country under foreign rule: American (independence) revolution, and the Yugoslav and Chinese (communist) revolutions. In none of these cases has the foreign ruler (Britain, nazi Germany/Italy, Japan) aided the revolution. It was invariably the revolution against the foreign ruler.
>
>Update: I may be wrong about China - it happened after the war, and I don't know exactly what the status of the country was at the time. Partly a colony?
>
>So the Iraqis have replaced a despot with a foreign ruler. Their new government is maybe a democratically elected one, but it's tainted by association - it's a government aided by an occupying force. Words like "puppet regime" come to mind.