In a piece in this month’s Atlantic, Nir Rosen offers a succinct, compelling argument for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as soon as possible.

If the rationale for the U.S. presence is to do what’s good for the Iraqis, Rosen reminds us that most Iraqis — even the country’s Shia majority, increasingly a target of terror attacks — want foreign soldiers out of their country, and leaving would allow the Iraqi leadership to promote democracy without being branded collaborators. If the rationale is that withdrawing would embolden America’s enemies, Rosen points out that the insurgency is almost entirely a homegrown phenomenon, driven not by lust for global jihad but by nationalist resistance; it will dissipate without a foreign presence to rally against. If the rationale is that America must put an end to terrorism overseas, Rosen points out that terrorism thrives in a failed state like Iraq, where daily attacks on the occupiers and their perceived collaborators prevent the establishment of civil order. If the rationale is that Baghdad would fall if the troops leave, Rosen maintains that the stronger Shia and Kurdish armed forces would never allow the Sunni resistance to take over the city. And if the rationale is that Iraq would fall apart if America withdraws, Rosen notes that this is happening already: The presence of U.S. troops is encouraging civil war, and the best of the painful options that remain is to leave Iraq alone, allow the Kurds to secede, and give up the dream for now of a purely secular, human rights-loving, democratic paradise in Iraq.

It is a bitter pill to swallow. For one thing, many Americans genuinely want a positive outcome in Iraq, after thousands of lives and billions of dollars have been expended in the name of liberation. They want, above all, an end to the violence. To leave with such uncertainty still looming over Iraq may seem like a defeat. But it is nonetheless the right thing to do. Perhaps the French had similar uncertainties after they helped the Americans vanquish the British at Yorktown: Why not stay for a few decades more, help the Americans with their terrorist problem in the western Indian lands, prevent the fractious new government from falling apart, and protect French interests across the continent? But the French chose to leave, and the American experiment in democracy survived.

For those of us who care about the rights of women and minorities, it would be preferable if Iraq became a truly secular nation, with protections for those groups that are typically oppressed under fundamentalist governments. With stability the most pressing concern in Iraq, that may be too much to demand right now. But this does not mean that progress will never come. America has spent more than three centuries extending the rights of white, Christian, male property owners to a wider circle; perhaps Iraq deserves some time to make a similar transition on its own. With any luck, the example of other countries will move it quickly along that path. But in any case, democracy means allowing the people to decide for themselves what they want. Until America’s troops leave, the Iraqis will never really have that chance.

Victor Tan Chen Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen